Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL[Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]

WESTMINSTER ABBEY AND SAINT MARGARET WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

UPPER AVON NAVIGATION BILL[Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL[Lords]

FRIENDS OF THE CLERGY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL[Lords]

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

PORT TALBOT CORPORATION BILL[Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

DUNDEE EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time, tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the cost of food has now risen since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June, 1970.

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June, 1970.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): The latest available information was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on 20th June—[Vol. 839, c. 213–14.]

Mr. Carter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his answer was deplorable and represented a vicious undermining of the living standards of millions of people? Why has he caused or allowed to be removed from the General Index of Retail Prices imported beef and mutton, both of which have increased in price dramatically and scandalously in recent weeks?

Mr. Prior: In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, there has been absolutely no change in the composition of the Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Carter: Yes, there has.

Mr. Prior: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, it is obvious that he was expecting a different answer from me and was at a loss what to say.

Mr. Price: In view of that disastrous figure, which he does not wish to repeat, how can the Minister justify the Government's attack upon the greedy trade unionists for trying to obtain £20 a week to pay the household bills? Will he deny


that food prices are likely to rise by at least another 17 per cent. over the next two years and, while doing so, in view of some of his recent statements, will he reveal one of the biggest mysteries of all time, when he does his own shopping?

Mr. Prior: It would be a great help to the House if the hon. Gentleman would take part in debates in the House instead of coming in just at Question Time and making extravagant remarks which bear no relationship whatever to the facts. If the hon. Gentleman wants a fact, I will give him one—

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman has never given me one yet.

Mr. Prior: In the last six months the Retail Food Price Index has gone up by 3·9 per cent. compared with 6·8 per cent. in the last six months' lifetime of the Labour Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whilst one is disturbed by the rise in the price of food, the rise in the price of cooking it is even greater because of the increase in coal prices which, if the Government are unable to subsidise electricity, will mean that the price of electricity will go up by 16 per cent.?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend is right always to worry about the rise in food prices or any other prices. We on this side of the House are doing everything we can to contain inflation and to keep prices steady, but we also have to bear in mind the rise in the standard of living, which I am pleased to say is rising at about double the rate at which it rose during the previous Administration.

Mr. Skinner: Is it the time of the year when we start to talk about peaches again? On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) about deletions from the retail prices index, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a copy from the Department which states that imported beef, sirloin without bone, back ribs with bone, brisket with bone and fore-ribs with bone have all been excluded from the index? Will he say whether that is a gigantic fiddle?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman should know—and his right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will

be able to tell him if he does not know—that under the foot and mouth regulations made some time ago all meat imported from places such as the Argentine now has to be boneless. It does not require anyone with much brain, except perhaps the hon. Gentleman, to realise that it is no longer necessary to include it in the food prices index.

Mr. Rost: Since hon. Members opposite are so keen to blame the Government for rising world food prices, will the Labour Party now congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that here and there world food prices are coming down?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, but I have noticed that the Opposition are interested only in prices that go up.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should not be arrogant in his replies to hon. Members. He knows full well that under the Conservative Administration prices have rocketed, and this means that the lower income group is suffering hardship—[Interruption.] This is no laughing matter. Many old-age pensioners and people on small pensions face considerable hardship because of high food prices, which will rise even more when we enter the Community.

Mr. Prior: I am not the least bit arrogant about the rise in food prices, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I fully appreciate the fact that old-age pensioners and those who live on fixed incomes have to bear the brunt of increased food prices, but the Government have taken action to bring them down. The rate at which they are now rising is far slower than that in the last year of the Labour Government.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take to reduce the rise in food prices.

Mr. Prior: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20th June to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler)—[Vol. 839, c. 210–11.]

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister start living with the times, because he will see that my Question asked about the further steps he proposes to take, not about the steps he purported to take a month ago?


Since it is obvious that the Government could lose the General Election on the issue of food prices alone, does he have any contingency plans for the direct control of food prices?

Mr. Prior: No, I have no plans for the direct control of food prices. This was not even introduced during the period of office of the Labour Government. Furthermore, I do not believe that it would work, particularly in view of the situation of world food supplies. To try to put controls on food supplies over which, in fact, we have no control would result merely in rationing having to be introduced again. The best thing we can do to help in terms of food prices is to continue with existing policies.

Mr. Brewis: What products recently have gone down in price, such as butter, margarine and jam?

Mr. Prior: The best example of a food which has gone down in price is butter, which during the last few weeks has fallen in price by about 9p a lb. Eggs also are considerably cheaper than they have been for years—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] It is extraordinary how hon. Members opposite hate to hear about falling prices.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average consumption per head of beef, fish and beer in the last month for which figures are available; what difference this represents since the same month two years ago; and by what proportion the price of these foods has increased in this period.

Mr. Prior: Figures for individual months are not available but I will circulate in the Official Report figures for the last quarters of 1969 and 1971.

END LAST QUARTERS






Fourth quarter 1969
Fourth quarter 1971
Percentage change






p
p



Beef: Home-killed


Chuck
…
…
…
31·0
37·0
+19·4


Sirloin (without bone)
…
…
…
42·8
53·3
+24·5


Silverside (without bone)
…
…
…
39·6
48·6
+22·7


Back ribs (with bone)
…
…
…
27·3
33·9
+24·2


Fore ribs (with bone)
…
…
…
26·8
33·1
+23·5


Brisket (with bone)
…
…
…
17·1
22·3
+30·4


Rump steak
…
…
…
54·0
67·3
+24·6

Mr. Hardy: Has the Minister perceived, and is he not concerned, that a reduction in the consumption of certain important protein foods has now commenced? Is that not a direct result of Government policy?

Mr. Prior: There has been a fall in the amounts of beef and fish available for sale. This is largely because of world factors beyond our control. However, all available supplies have been taken up and the Government, through their agricultural policy, are doing all they can to increase the production of beef and dairy products.

Mr. James Johnson: Concerning the important matter of fish, which is often a substitute for beef and other meats, will the Minister comment on the price of fish and chips, for example, if we are denied access to fishing off the Icelandic Banks after September?

Mr. Prior: This is the kind of world factor which pushes up prices. Our exclusion from a 50-mile area round Iceland would have a serious effect on fish prices as well as on unemployment in certain areas. This is a factor very much in the Government's mind in their attitude towards the Icelandic dispute.

Following is the information:

SUPPLIES MOVING INTO UNITED KINGDOM CONSUMPTIONIN THE LAST QUARTERS OF 1969 AND 1971 WERE AS FOLLOWS:



(lb. per head per annum)



1969
1971


Beef and Veal 
12·1
11·9


Fish, fresh, frozen and cured (wet fillet equivalent)
4·1
3·2


Beer (pints per head per annum)
44·2
46·7

As far as prices are concerned the Food Index figures for home-killed beef and fresh fish show the following increases over the period:

Fourth quarter 1969
Fourth quarter 1971
Percentage change






p
p



Fish


Cod fillets
…
…
…
19·2
29·5
+53·6


Haddock fillets
…
…
…
23·2
30·5
+31·5


Haddock smoked
…
…
…
20·9
27·9
+33·5


Plaice fillets
…
…
…
32·2
38·0
+18·0


Halibut cuts
…
…
…
43·4
52·7
+21·4


Herrings
…
…
…
10·4
14·6
+40·4


Kippers (with bone)
…
…
…
14·2
19·3
+35·9

The price of beer in public bars rose by about 23 per cent. in the same period.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the percentage increase in the retail prices of bread, butter and beef since June, 1970.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the retail prices of beef, butter and cheese have now increased since June, 1970.

Mr. Prior: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware that, without seeing these figures, we know sufficient to realise that when the Government are kicked out by the electorate in about 18 months, one of their great successes will have been to raise the price of a roast beef sandwich almost to the price of a meal at the Savoy when they took office in 1970?

Mr. Prior: Nothing damages a case more than to exaggerate in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has exaggerated. I recognised, probably better than most hon. Members, the serious rise in food prices over the last few years. But for all that, the position has improved. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should at least give credit for the fact that the position is now a good deal better than it was two years ago or one year ago.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that he published figures only three weeks ago indicating that essential foodstuffs had increased substantially in price between June, 1970, and April this year? Does he agree that they are still increasing? Will he spell out the precise steps he proposes to take to prevent them from increasing any further when we enter the Common Market?

Mr. Prior: We have accepted that entry into the Common Market is bound to lead to some increase in the price of food. We have never disguised that fact. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the rise in the standard of living which is going on now and which will take place when we join the Community. After all, it is the standard of living more than the cost of living which counts.

Mr. Kinsey: Will my right hon. Friend explain further the reason for the decrease in the price of butter so that the housewife will understand? Will he explain not only this sudden fluctuation, but what he will do for the future to keep the price steady?

Mr. Prior: The reason the price of butter increased so rapidly was a world shortage. World supplies are now more plentiful, among other reasons because we are producing more butter at home; and the price has fallen by £120 a ton in the last three months. I see no reason why it should not stabilise at about the present level for the rest of the year.

Following is the information:

The following table shows the percentage increases between 16th June, 1970, and 16th May, 1972, the latest date for which information is available, in the average prices collected for the purposes of the Index of Retail Food Prices.

Item
Percentage increase in average price


Beef: Home-killed


Chuck
24·8


Sirloin (without bone)
25·7


Silverside (without bone)*
23·6


Back ribs (with bone)*
27·6


Fore ribs (with bone)
26·1


Brisket (with bone) 
30·8


Rump steak*
23·8


Beef: Imported, chilled


Chuck
34·5


Silverside (without bone)*
26·0


Rump steak*
19·9

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage rise in the Food Index in each six months period from mid-May to mid-November in each of the last three years; and what has been the increase since November, 1971 to date.

Mr. Prior: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give the figures, I will give them. Am I correct in repeating the answer to my Question on 18th January that from mid-May to mid-November, 1969, the Food Price Index went up by 0·3 per cent., from mid-May to mid-November, 1970, by 1 per cent., and from mid-May to mid-November, 1971, by 2·4 per cent.; in other words, 800 per cent. more in the six months from mid-May to mid-November, 1971, compared with 0·3 per cent. in the last six months of the Labour Government? Will he also confirm that there are concealed price increases, as some of his hon. Friends will tell him, by reductions in the weights and qualities of goods, although the prices appear to remain stable?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has shown only too well the acceleration in food prices that was going on before the election and that has gone on since. That is exactly what we are at last beginning to get under control. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman should be pleased that I did not give the figures.

Following is the information:

The percentage changes in the Food Index in each six months period from mid-May to mid-November in each of the last three years, and since November, 1971, to date, were as follows:

Percent.


mid-May,1969
1969—mid-November,
+0·3


mid-May,1970
1970—mid-November,
+1·0


mid-May,1971
1971—mid-November,
+2·4


mid-November,1972
1971—mid-May,
+3·9

Concorde

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union in Cornwall about damage caused by the prototype Concorde on its flight-testing programme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): None, Sir.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the anti-Concorde project has approached the NFU in Cornwall to provide a list of farms over which Concorde has flown so that it might try to elicit complaints from fanners? Is he further aware that one of the farmers, Mr. Rex Davey, who farms 600 acres in Cornwall, was approached by the anti-Concorde project and asked to list the occasions on which Concorde had damaged live stock and buildings, and that he replied that Concorde had caused no damage—[Hon. Members: "Speech."]—either to his buildings or to any of his livestock? Is he aware that Mr. Davey asked me to do what I could—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Mills: No, Sir, I am not aware of these facts, but there have been very few complaints. Very little damage has been done, in spite of the fears in agriculture. The Cornwall NFU has acted very responsibly in these matters.

Calf Subsidy

Mr. David Clark: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it a condition of the grant of calf subsidy that the beast shall not be subsequently exported.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My right hon. Friend does not consider such action to be either practical or desirable.

Mr. Clark: Does the Minister realise that it is making the British farmer the laughing stock of Europe? Does he also realise that the British housewife objects to paying tax to get beef at a reasonable price only to find that that beef has gone abroad to subsidise the French housewife?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir, I do not agree that it is making the British farmer a laughing stock. If I may put to the hon. Gentleman the practical difficulties of his suggestion, the subsidy is paid to a fanner who owns and rears calves, and he has no control whatever over whether they are exported after he has sold them. Therefore, it would be totally impracticable to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What were our total exports of beef to Europe in the last three months?

Mr. Stodart: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.

Horticulture Improvement Scheme

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet considered the future of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, particularly in respect of those growers who will require capital to reorientate their patterns of production as a consequence of United Kingdom entry into the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the future of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme after 1974.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Under existing legislation the Horticulture Improvement Scheme still has well over 18 months to run, and I am sure that growers will continue to take full advantage of it. The nature of the assistance to be given to the industry in the longer term is under consideration.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that anxiety is being created by the uncertainty, particularly for growers who wish to adapt to the new and changing circumstances? Furthermore, will he give some indication of the discussions which are taking place at present be-

tween the EEC and the United Kingdom Government about this form of grant aid?

Mr. Stodart: It would be difficult for me to do this without incurring the displeasure of the House by giving too long a reply, but there are no grounds for the rumours which are causing needless alarm in respect of the scheme up to April, 1974. The kind of help and its extent after that time is being considered, and the recent EEC directives on help to be given through FEOGA lay greater emphasis on the improvement of structure than does the present scheme.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman says that the matter is under consideration. When will he be in a position to make an announcement? This section of the industry, which is very important, is extremely worried about entry into the EEC. It must be admitted, even by ardent Europeans, that inevitably our horticultural industry may be affected.

Mr. Stodart: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in paying a tribute to the enterprise shown by British horticulture. It is almost certain that we shall come back to the House before the present scheme ends to obtain more money for the scheme to be extended. I deplore any suggestion that we shall not be able to compete once growers have taken advantage of this scheme.

Mr. Blaker: Has my hon. Friend in mind the fact that his right hon. Friends have given some firm undertakings on this matter and that these have been generally understood not to be within the context solely of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme? Will he give an assurance that he is bearing these undertakings in mind in formulating his policy?

Mr. Stodart: Yes.

Packaged Foods (Consumer Information)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will obtain particulars of the United States Food and Drug Administration Scheme for indicating nutritional values on packaged foods with a view to initiating a similar scheme of information for consumers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Mills: My right hon. Friend has particulars of the US scheme which was published for comment on 30th March last and is still under discussion. Our Labelling of Food Regulations, 1970, which will come into force on 1st January, 1973, lay down rules for claims about nutritional properties.

Mrs. Butler: With artificial substances increasingly reducing traditional nutrients, is not it a fact that a little of what you fancy from a food packet nowadays may do you anything but good? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that shoppers are and will be completely in the dark about food values? In addition to the suggestions made in the new fool labelling regulations, will the hon. Gentleman consider a massive extension of the food standards procedure as an additional protection for the shopper?

Mr. Mills: Once again the hon. Lady has shown her interest in these very important subjects. It is important that claims made on labels and in advertisements should be correct and true. Of course we watch these matters most carefully.

Forestry Policy

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce proposals to implement the review of the forestry policy published in June, 1972.

Mr. Peter Mills: My right hon. Friends await the views of interested bodies on the consultative document which has been published. Meanwhile they have had a preliminary exchange of views with the Forestry Committee of Great Britain.

Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very good work that the Forestry Commission is doing in promoting amenity areas and forest paths? Will he investigate the possibility of making it a condition of grants to private woodland owners that they, too, should provide this kind of amenity free to the public? While the hon. Gentleman is conducting consultations, will he also indicate how he proposes to consult Parliament on this report?

Mr. Mills: We are well aware of the good work that the Forestry Commission is doing, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I agree that it is becom-

ing increasingly important. However, this is a consultative document, which means that a very wide range of people must digest it first. We are consulting them. Certainly we shall keep the House informed of what we are doing.

Mr. More: Is my hon. Friend aware that the review has not been received with rapturous enthusiasm by the organisations principally concerned with the well being of forestry in this country? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the possibility of a debate on forestry before the end of the present year and certainly before implementing proposals are announced?

Mr. Mills: Of course I will do that. But there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. The dedication scheme will continue. It is only an extension of that which will probably be altered. There is a great deal of misunderstanding, but it is right that we should consult these bodies and sort out this matter. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. Milne: Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to that part of the review of forestry policy dealing with the provision of jobs in development districts and the use of forestry resources to set up industries which can find it of advantage to use the supplies which are undoubtedly available?

Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is exactly what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to clear up the confusion about when a planting grant can be given for afforestation? Will he also take note of the fact that many of the premises in the Treasury cost-benefit study are open to considerable doubt, to say the least?

Mr. Mills: Again, this is all for consultation. The cost-benefit study throws light on important parts of the economics of forestry. But we have made it clear that it cannot be the sole basis for deciding future policy.

Antibiotics and Chemicals

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he now proposes to take to control


the import of foods from countries which permit the use of antibiotic additions in feeding stuffs, and agricultural chemicals for crop protection, which are banned in Great Britain on grounds of risk to health or the contamination of the environment.

Mr. Peter Mills: My right hon. Friend does not consider such action is necessary at present on either health or environmental grounds, but he is continuing to keep these matters under review.

Mr. Blaker: Do not we have the rather curious situation in which the British consumer is able to buy imported horticultural and agricultural foodstuffs which have been produced with the aid of chemicals that are banned to the home producer? Should not our position as the world's biggest importer of food give us a great deal of bargaining power in persuading other countries to adopt regulations similar to our own, and is that bargaining power being used?

Mr. Mills: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about these matters. We are watching the position closely. I do not believe that the hazard is as great as some people make out. We monitor imported meat especially, and certainly we are leading the world in restricting antibiotics in food.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that if we have a ban on the use of these antibiotics, we have it for a good reason? If that is the case, is not it near criminal to allow such imports into the country if there is the possibility of contamination? Will the hon. Gentleman act now?

Mr. Mills: No. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating slightly. I do not think that it is criminal. We are watching this problem. We are monitoring, as I have said, and action will be taken if the levels rise too much.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Why ban it for us?

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under EEC regulations permitting the use of such antibiotics in feeding stuffs, we are not allowed to ban them? Does he accept, further, that we have accepted a position which forces our farmers to adopt a less advantageous method of producing meat, with consequential health hazards?

Mr. Mills: No. We are aware of the situation in the Community and we have obtained a five-year derogation from that part of the directive, during which time we hope that member States will adopt our policy.

Beer

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from hon. Members about beer prices; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Since the beginning of last year my right hon. Friend and I have received 10 letters from hon. Members about beer prices. Appropriate replies have been sent.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Minister of State realise that working men's club committees despair of putting up price lists since, with each delivery of stock from breweries or wholesalers, prices have gone up—not Federation, of course? How long do we have to wait until the working man has to pay 25p for his pint?

Mr. Stodart: There have been selective increases this year by most of our leading brewers. This reflects the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes in 1969 that prices should go up in order that certain improvements might be made. I should have thought that the annual increase in consumption, the figures of which came out two days ago, seemed to imply considerable satisfaction on the part of beer drinkers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: While it may be two-edged as an argument, the fact remains that since the Government came to office the consumption of alcohol has gone up. From this increase in consumption is it not clear that people can afford to pay more?

Mr. Stodart: I also accept, generally speaking, that alcohol is something that one drinks by way of celebration.

Mr. Buchan: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is about the only subject on which Sir William McEwan Younger has not made a pronouncement?

Mr. Stodart: I am afraid that in view of Sir William McEwan Younger's present position, that does not seem to be entirely relevant.

Mr. Loughlin: In addition to thinking in terms of beer prices, can the hon. Gentleman explain away the fact that over the last two or three years the specific gravity of beer has gone down to the extent that it is now near-beer and not beer at all?

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman is renowned for his powers of exaggeration. The specific gravity of beer has fallen by a minimal amount over the last 10 years.

Cereals

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increase in the international trade in barley exports so far in 1972 over 1970–71, he will make a statement on the probable effects of this in the United Kingdom market; and what is the position over other grains.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I do not consider that any increase recorded in international trade in the major cereals in this crop year is likely to have any harmful effects on our market, which is protected by the variable levy scheme.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful for that answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that the House is grateful for the fact that a statement is to be made concerning cereals arising from yesterday's discussions in Brussels? Is he also aware of concern about the original proposals by the Commission? Will his statement improve on those proposals?

Mr. Stodart: It would probably be wise for my hon. Friend to wait for the statement.

Palace of Westminster (Eradication of Mice)

Mr. Frank Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the progress being made towards the eradication of mice from the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Peter Mills: During the Easter Adjournment our routine daily treatments were augmented by intensive operations. This programme materially reduced the infestation, and if necessary it will be repeated during future Adjournments and Recesses; but complete eradication is

impracticable in a complex structure such as the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Taylor: This is a very small subject, but does my hon. Friend agree that it raises matters of considerable national importance? Will he tell the House what steps, if any, are being taken to deal with the menace of increasing immunity—

Mr. Heffer: Speak up.

Mr. Taylor: That is true to form. Will my hon. Friend tell us what steps, if any, are being taken to eradicate the menace of increasing immunity of some pests to previously effective pesticides?

Mr. Mills: Parliamentary mice have not been specifically tested for resistance to Warfarin, but other poisons are used in the Palace of Westminster because resistant mice are quite common in the London area. It seems that mice are as persistent as some hon. Members in their desire to stay here.

Foodstuffs (Date Stamping)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, following the publication of the Report of the Food Standards Committee on the date stamping of foodstuffs, what steps he intends to take to protect the consumer.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend on 5th July indicated, he will decide later this year on any action needed when he has the comments of consumers and trade organisations on this informative and important report by the Food Standards Committee.—[Vol. 840, c.155–6.]

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend accept our appreciation of his initiative in commissioning this report, will he convey our congratulations to the Food Standards Committee on the excellence of its report, but, when he receives representations from the trade, will he turn a deaf ear to those who may seek to perpetuate inefficient stock control methods at the expense of the consumer and fully implement the recommendations in the report at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Stodart: I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the comments my hon. Friend made and the compliments


she paid to him. We completely accept in principle the basis on which the committee has reached its conclusion, but the committee admitted the need to examine detailed suggestions on, for example, the exact form of dating, which is a fairly complex matter. That is why comments have been invited by 31st October.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister accept that this Question, like those from my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and many other hon. Members recently, emphasises the compelling urgency now for a consumer advisory committee? Before Report stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, will he reconsider his rejection of the Labour Party's proposal on that issue?

Mr. Stodart: I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman or the House could wish for than the excellent report of the Food Standards Committee.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does my hon. Friend accept that the question is not as simple as it looks? Food stamp dating can help, but it can also confuse. One thing that is certain is that if it is not done carefully it can powerfully affect the price of food, and that is in no one's interest.

Mr. Stodart: I have seen Press reports to that effect. I should very much prefer not to comment on it, but to await the detailed and, I hope, informed comments that will come in by 31st October.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the complexities of the matter have been greatly exaggerated and that there is widespread disappointment that his right hon. Friend did not decide to implement the report immediately? This has been a priority demand for consumers for years, and the trade and everybody else concerned has had a long time in which to consider all the details. When is the hon. Gentleman going to get on with it?

Mr. Stodart: May I inform the hon. Lady that two of the recommendations of the report itself were that comments from the food industry ought to be invited and considered by the committee,

and that no regulations ought to come into force for three years?

Bramley Apples

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of anxieties among producers of Bramley apples that the European Economic Community grading regulations are designed for dessert apples, and consequently the majority of Bramleys will technically be grade III and be prohibited from the market; and if he will take steps to protect the British crop.

Mr. Prior: Whilst I do not accept that under the EEC Regulations the majority of Bramleys would be prohibited from sale I do recognise that the EEC grades make no separate provision for culinary apples and that this could give rise to marketing problems. It is for this reason that we have already told the Commission that problems may arise on Bramleys and we shall want to pursue this matter vigorously after our entry.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bramley is the finest cooking apple in the world? Since this Question was put on the Order Paper I have been inundated with letters from housewives who are most anxious to be assured that the supply of these apples will continue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be vigorous when he says "vigorous", because we must have these regulations altered to suit British conditions, and we must not be steamrollered into taking continental produce.

Mr. Prior: The Bramley apple is unique, and its quality is unrivalled in the rest of the world. The conciliatory tone taken by the Council of Ministers last night leads me to think that it will take a similar attitude in future.

Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless some action is taken with the EEC about the use of Ethoxyqin to cure blight in apples, a chemical which is used for that purpose but which is not allowed to be used under the EEC regulations, we shall not get any apples anyway? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

Mr. Prior: I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said and write to him.

Sir R. Cary: We cannot allow the Bramley to be graded III in the EEC. It is the most delicious apple that we grow. I grow a lot of them on my property, and it is marvellous to go out and pick an apple.

Mr. Prior: I am certain that my hon. Friend's Bramley apples are so good that they would not in any case be graded III. If they are delicious I am certain that there will be a market for them, and it is my job to see that there is one.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the working of the existing legislation as regards safeguarding the interests of consumers of products for which he has responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Mills: Yes, Sir. Consumers of food are protected by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, supplemented by regulations dealing with composition, description, labelling, advertising, food additives, hygiene and safety. The legislation is amended when necessary.

Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite what he read out, it has had little effect in curbing the activities of dubious advertisers and gimmicky sales promotion which, together with the lackadaisical, cavalier attitude of his right hon. Friend, has contributed to rising prices? Rising food prices for the average British housewife can have a serious effect on industrial relations, and that is the point which the hon. Gentleman ought to consider.

Mr. Mills: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He can rest assured that the consumer is protected and that we watch this matter very carefully.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Queen's Speech it was clearly stated that legislation would be introduced this Session further to protect the consumer? As the Session is getting on, is my Hon. Friend able to say whether he and his colleagues will put this right in the next Session?

Mr. Mills: I am not qualified to answer that. All that I can do is to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — PITCAIRN ISLANDS

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Pitcairn Islands.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Did the French nuclear tests in the area of the Pitcairn Islands have the Prime Minister's approval?

The Prime Minister: The British Government's view about tests in the atmosphere is well known. We negotiated the test ban treaty, and I was with the Foreign Secretary when it was signed in Moscow. Our views are known to the French Government.

Mr. Hattersley: Did the French Government know our views on the programme of which those tests were a part? Has the right hon. Gentleman told the French Government categorically that there is no prospect of Anglo-French co-operation in the military sphere?

The Prime Minister: That matter has not been discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES UNION CONGRESS (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister what recent official discussions he has had with Mr. Vic Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Trades Union Congress leaders on 4th July.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will report on his official meeting with the Trades Union Congress General Council on 4th July, 1972.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with the Trades Union Congress General Council which were held on 4th July.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with the Trades Union Congress leaders on 4th July.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Trades Union Congress on 4th July.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what proposals were put to him by the Trades Union Congress leaders during his recent discussion with them on industrial relations.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his latest talks with the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his discussions with Trades Union Congress leaders at 10 Downing Street.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement following his meeting with the Trades Union Congress on Tuesday, 4th July.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the answer I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 6th July.—[Vol. 840, c. 207.]

Mr. Atkinson: When the Prime Minister meets trade union leaders this afternoon will he confirm to them that there has been a drop in employment in manufacturing and production industries over the last 12 months of more than 5 per cent.? Will he also confirm to them that all the indstrial economists who have made predictions about employment opportunities during the coming 12 months in manufacturing industry suggest that there will be a further 3 per cent. drop in job opportunities? The onus is therefore upon the right hon. Gentleman. If he is to solve the unemployment situation, the Government must now announce the measures which they intend to take to create jobs in the service industries to reduce the appalling size of the unemployment problem.

The Prime Minister: The important point about industrial production is that the increase for manufacturing industry in May over April was 3·1 points—that is, in one month alone. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are at all time prepared

to discuss the figures of growth and employment with the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Ashton: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC at the NEDC meeting he will be only two months from the £1-a-week rent increase in October. Although some of the poorer paid will get rebates what does he expect trade unionists to do when the increase comes into effect? Will he tell them that he expects them to absorb the rent increases, or will he say that they should go for wage increases to pay for them?

The Prime Minister: This is an arrangement which helps the lower paid in particular, and that is one of the objectives of the TUC. When we listed the subjects which we thought could readily be discussed this afternoon from the Government's point of view, the subject of improvements for the lower paid was one of them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the Leader of the Opposition genuinely wants to promote the national interest, which I am sure he does, would it not be better if, instead of making impossible demands in weekend speeches, he pointed to what the Government had done to help the lower-paid workers and to keep down prices?

The Prime Minister: I agree that that is desirable. In fairness to the TUC, I must say that, in discussions which I have had with it, the council has fully acknowledged what the Government have done in this respect, and that the CBI has carried out its undertaking on the 5 per cent. arrangement for prices.

Mr. Lamond: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he swallow his pride and thank the council for the responsible way in which it has responded to his overtures and turned the other cheek and behaved much more responsibly that his own Ministers, who have lost no opportunity of chastising the council unfairly for things which were not its fault?

The Prime Minister: I have said on many occasions that I have had many meetings with the TUC, whether the General Council, the General Purposes Committee or the Economic Committee. I have said in public that I was delighted that the council accepted my invitation to


have talks, and I am pleased that the CBI will be there, too.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If my right hon. Friend were invited to be the guest speaker at this year's Trades Union Congress, would he accept? Does he not think that if the TUC wants to reflect its impartiality and objectivity, it would not hurt the TUC to invite a Conservative Prime Minister in the same way as it invites Labour Prime Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I think that question can best be answered in accordance with the House of Commons tradition—that it is a hypothetical question which normally one would not answer. However, I gladly say that if I were invited, I would accept.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the Prime Minister feel in his heart, wherever it may be, that there is something unjust in asking leaders of men to accept a pay norm, whatever that may be, when many of the men responsible for telling the trade unions that they cannot have increased pay awards have themselves been given a pay increase, willy-nilly, of at least £2,000 a year by the present Government?

The Prime Minister: Since the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recommendation of the review boards which were set up in an attempt to find an impartial way of dealing with these matters, I should remind him of the awards recommended for Ministers, for the Leader of the Opposition and Members of Parliament. They affected pensions of Members of Parliament and other arrangements. We accepted them in toto because we said that we would deal with the matter on the basis that this was an independent recommendation. It was the same for the chairmen of the nationalised industries, senior civil servants and the judiciary. If there is a better way of dealing with it, let it be suggested, but so far no Government have found a better way. It is right that, a review board having been set up, with a responsible chairman and membership, and the members having given a large amount of their time, its report should be treated responsibly by the Government and by Parliament.

Miss Joan Hall: Is it not true that (the catering industry in this country is

very short of staff and has had to obtain employees from overseas to keep the industry going? This applies particularly in Yorkshire and on Humberside where there is unemployment and also a large number of vacancies in the catering industry. Could not some of these unemployed be put into the catering industry?

The Prime Minister: This is a point with which my colleagues and I are very much in agreement. Discussions have been conducted on this problem with the catering industry by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is also involved. I understand that the amount of training going on in this country for the catering industry is very substantial. I hope that the industry will now take full advantage of those who have had first-rate training in this country.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rising prices, unemployment and industrial relations are inextricably linked? Is he not also aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has called for restraint on both sides of industry? Ought not the Prime Minister now to make his contribution by telling the CBI and the TUC that the Government acknowledge that the Industrial Relations Act has created far too much disharmony in industry and that he is prepared to see that the Act is properly amended?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with this matter fully in my speech in the House on industrial relations a fortnight ago. I said that when the Act had been operated fully for a reasonable time I would be prepared to consider what recommendations there may be for its amendment. This is a perfectly normal attitude for the Government to adopt.
I agree with what the hon. Member said about the three factors being interrelated. The fact is that if inflation continues and prices rise, there will inevitably be unemployment. That causes tension in industry, which leads to industrial unrest, just as rising prices themselves create pressure for rising wages, and these cause tensions in society and industrial disturbance.

Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend met the TUC did he get the impression which many of us have received privately from trade union leaders that they support the principle of the Industrial Relations Act but would approve of some amendment of it?

The Prime Minister: It would be fair to say that there are varying views in the trade union movement about the Act and about particular parts of it, but my statement, which I made in the debate in the House, remains the Government's position.

Mr. Ashley: Despite his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that while the Industrial Relations Act remains on the Statute Book all discussions with the TUC will be barren? Since the Secretary of State for Employment has admitted that it is impossible to assess the long-term effect of the Act, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government should never have passed the Act in the first place?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept that. When I explained the Government's position at the last meeting with the TUC—it was the General Council of the TUC—they accepted the Government's position. If they had not done so, they would not be having talks with us and the CBI today.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the plan put forward in the Labour Party's policy document for a compulsory prices policy and a voluntary wages policy is one of the surest ways of decreasing investment and of increasing unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I think that is undoubtedly true. The situation that we have is one in which we have reduced the rate of price increases by a half and we must now ensure that the pressure is not stoked up by inflationary wage increases.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman not concede that in the battle against inflation the trade union movement has shown its willingness to co-operate? Will he now take a decisive step forward and agree to the TUC recommendation that he should agree to

the CBI and the TUC entering into conciliation procedure with the proviso that the Industrial Relations Act goes into cold storage, to find out whether the policy will work? Will the Prime Minister take a decisive step in this battle, which concerns every one of us?

The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, at the meeting last Thursday between the TUC and the CBI agreement was reached about the first stage of the conciliation procedure which they would organise among themselves. This does not require any assistance from the Government, and I understand that the agreement now goes to the governing bodies of both organisations for their approval.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND CRIMINAL LAW REFORM

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister, if the statement made by the Lord Chancellor broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 30th June, 1972, on the subjects of industrial relations and criminal law reform represents the policies of the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the Prime Minister not agree that that speech represented an implied acceptance by the Lord Chancellor of the reasoning behind the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee? Does he not agree that this is an attempt by that Committee to foist upon this country a hybrid system of criminal law, representing a cross between an inquisitorial system and our present system, and yet having no safeguards for the accused? Does he not feel that there is absolutely no evidence to support the basic premise in the report, namely that professional criminals are somehow or other getting away with crime?

The Prime Minister: I have read the whole of the transcript of the interview with the Lord Chancellor, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that he went to great pains to emphasis that he was not announcing any decision of any kind. In the to-and-fro discussions between Mr. Robin Day and himself, the Lord Chancellor was, I think, examining


the various issues on which the committee had made recommendations, but he emphasised many times that no decision had yet been taken by the Government and that the Government wanted to hear representations before they did so. The decision would then be announced by the Home Secretary and debated by Parliament if Parliament wished.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Home Secretary has indicated that there will be a debate on the report itself before any legislation arising from it will be introduced by the Government? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to see that that comes to pass?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will gladly give that assurance.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the recent report of the Oxford Group for research on juries has indicated that there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning of the committee, and that what is required before any decisions are made by this House, or by the Government, is much more detailed research on how juries react to evidence before them in present criminal trials?

The Prime Minister: It is a report such as this and the views upon it of organisasions which are concerned with all these matters which the Home Secretary wishes to consider before the Government can reach any conclusions. It is also useful for public discussion to develop before we have a debate in the House on the report.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Question is about the broadcast by the Lord Chancellor. Is there any power to make this broadcast compulsory reading for all right hon. and hon. Members, since it was excellent and penetrating and all could profit from a study of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL POLICY

Mr. Benn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the light of the representation of the West German Government, he will make a statement on the assurances he has received from the Brussels Com-

mission that the regional policies of Her Majesty's Government embodied in legislation now before Parliament are acceptable to the Commission.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): We have been in close touch with the development of Community regional policy and thinking over a considerable period of time. As a result, we have no reason to believe that there is any conflict between our new regional measures and the obligations of membership of the Community, a belief borne out by the fact that our new measures have been public knowledge for four months without attracting criticism from the Commission or any member State.
As I understand recent developments, the German Government has asked for information from the Commission about three aspects of our new policies; free depreciation for plant and machinery, depreciation allowance for industrial buildings, and regional development grants. I further understand that the Commission has already told the German Government that the depreciation provisions in the Finance Bill are not regarded by it as regional measures and are, therefore, irrelevant to Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. The position on regional development grants turns on the discussions still to be held under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Again, we are quite confident that a perfectly satisfactory outcome will emerge from these discussions.

Mr. Benn: That answer is completely unsatisfactory. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the German memorandum, which was sent in on 11th July, was not revealed to the House on the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill, which took place two days later? Is it not clear that the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given and the assurances given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the Industry Bill and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the European Communties Bill are entirely valueless in that the decision in this matter does not rest with the Government but, under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, any State may appeal to the Commission, the Commission has to decide, and, unless the Ministers unanimously override the


Commission, that decision prevails and the Commission or any member State may proceed through the courts against the United Kingdom over the head of the British Government and the British Parliament?
Is it not clearly laid down in the treaty, therefore, that key areas of economic and financial policy are removed from the control of Parliament and the electorate, and will the right hon. Gentleman take it that this is wholly unacceptable and will not bind future Parliaments? Will he note that we shall debate the matter today in the debate on unemployment in the North-West, we shall debate this matter tomorrow on the Finance Bill and we shall debate it later when the Industry Bill comes back?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that nothing that he has been able to say today can lift from the House the anxiety which arises from the fact that after 1st January these powers will be taken from the British Parliament, and that a ministerial assurance has no value whatever?

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman's continued attempts to raise anxiety in the regions about entry into the Common Market lack a great deal of credibility. He and his party, I understand, are in favour, in prinicple, of entry into the Common Market. It would be a strange posture indeed to be in favour of entry in prinicple but opposed to any common rules and co-operation about regional policy. It would be a nonsense. This is only a part of the shabby manoeuvring which has gone on to heal the divisions, or attempt to heal the divisions, within the Labour Party.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about a memorandum from the German Government dated early July. What has happened is that the German Government have made an inquiry of the Commission. They have asked for information, and the Commission has given them some information. I imagine that even the right hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty in making of that anything which will arouse anxieties in the regions.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Would it not be as well if Her Majesty's Government were at once to inform our future partners that, when we are in the Community, if our

joint endeavours can devise some better means of helping our regions, well and good, but, if not, their welfare must remain a vital national interest which we will protect at all costs?

Mr. Chataway: The agreements which we have reached under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession safeguard the position of our regional policy. I agree with my hon. Friend. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when, a few years ago, he said that he was entirely convinced that,
the Community are as clear as we are that the welfare of the whole cannot be ensured without an effective attack on the problems of the less developed regions".—[Official Report, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1075–6.]
That was the Community's attitude, and it remains its attitude.

Mr. Rhodes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement that the Commission is merely giving information and being asked questions is a gross distortion of what has happened, since the Commission has agreed to discuss with the German delegation whether legislation now passing through this House is valid in terms of the Treaty of Rome and whether, therefore, after 1st January it will be invalidated? Is that not a statement of the position, and would it not be better to come clean with the House and say so?

Mr. Chataway: That is not the position. The position is precisely as I have described it, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear when he was asked similar questions in March. The White Paper and the Industry Bill were shown to the Commission as soon as they were available, and the Commission made no request for consultation on either document.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Is it not clear that the main interest of the Commission is to evolve a satisfactory European regional policy, and a necessary ingredient of that is to find out what the various member countries and prospective member countries are doing, to find out what is worth having and what is worth adopting?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is just as much in our interest as in the interest of any other


region in the Common Market that there should be common rules and an avoidance of bidding up of incentives throughout Europe.

Mr. Jay: Is it not another sad reflection on the good faith of Ministers that this deplorable business was concealed from Parliament until after Third Reading?

Mr. Chataway: Nothing was concealed from Parliament. The position is exactly as I have described it, that an inquiry was made—[Interruption.]—if hon. Gentlemen will stop shouting, I shall answer the question—an inquiry was made by the German Government, of which we heard yesterday—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—for information from the Commission. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite are succeeding in their intention of arousing anxiety in the regions by pursuing this line of questioning.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the White Paper stated specifically that the Government's intention was to continue these incentives until 1978 to give industry the confidence which it required to invest? Does he agree that uncertainty in this regard could cause difficulties? Although I am sure that people in the regions will be glad to have the Minister's assurance that, in his view and in the Government's view, this is not inconsistent, could he tell us when we are likely as a nation to know whether the Commission accepts these incentives?

Mr. Chataway: I have made clear the dealings we have had with the Commission over the White Paper and the Industry Bill to date, and I have told the House about the Commission's reaction. The measures that we are proposing are entirely consistent with our obligations. As my hon. Friend knows, the negotiations which will take place on the working out of Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession will be conducted in the middle of next year.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it not in the nature of the Community that there will be challenges of this kind from time to time from individual members of the Community, one day probably including ourselves? In the nature of things, politicians being what they are, are not

these challenges more likely in the prelude to elections?

Mr. Chataway: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's last remark, but of course he is absolutely right to say that in working out a common policy in any direction there are bound to be challenges. I do not know that this amounts to one.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that precisely the same situation would have occurred during the time when the Labour Government applied to join the Common Market? Would he not agree that it is an odd kind of internationalism which refuses to allow anybody to ask any questions about a Community matter?

Mr. Chataway: I think that we should all conclude that it is a very odd kind of internationalism that prevails on the Opposition side anyway.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to know the outcome of the Commission's consideration of what he has called "the German inquiry"?

Mr. Chataway: I have told the House of the reply that the Commission has given to that inquiry. So we know the answer now, for I have given it.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not quite clear that all the aids to regional development policy about which the Germans have some reservations were contained in paragraphs 8 to 33 inclusive of the White Paper, "Industrial and Regional Development", which was thoroughly discussed with the Commission, and that if there had been any ambiguities about them, that was the time when one would have expected the Government and the House to be so informed? Is not the reality behind all this that it is well known that we hope to trade off our contribution to the common agricultural policy, which in a sense is a regional policy, by getting in return a Continental contribution to the financing of our industrial policy? Is not this a flexing of the muscles on the part of a supposedly friendly country within the Community and merely an indication of what we can expect to come from the French?

Mr. Chataway: I think that the majority of those concerned with regional


policy would want to see a common European regional policy worked out. As for our dealings with the Commission, I have explained that the documents, the White Paper and the Industry Bill, were shown to the Commission after their publication, and that the Commission lodged no objection against them.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a few weeks ago his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster informed me in the House that there was no inhibition whatever on the pursuit of regional policies now being considered by Her Majesty's Government in the event of our entering Europe, and that he stated that that opinion was given on the basis of the conversations that the Government had had with the Governments of the Six? Is it a case of the German Government's now ratting on an agreement solemnly entered into, or is it a case of the Government seeking to deceive the House of Commons?

Mr. Chataway: It is astonishing that hon. Members should make a charge of that kind against friendly Governments on the sort of evidence that is available. I have made it clear that we have had discussions over a long period about regional policy with members of the Community and with the Commission, and we are perfectly satisfied on the basis of all that has been discussed that what we are proposing is entirely consistent with the treaty. I have made it clear and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it clear on many occasions that of course we want to see a common approach and we are, therefore, anxious to work it out.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Does not my right hon. Friend regard it as strange that Labour Members, who are always pressing for better regional policies, should find it so objectionable that in Europe one should have to plan to make regional policies for Europe and for us more effective?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Edward Short: If the Commission decides that some parts of this legislation are incompatible with Community

rules, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will become invalid on 1st January whether it has been passed by the House or not?

Mr. Chataway: No, that is not the position. The position is that under the Treaty of Accession we are committed to discussions about Article 154 of the Treaty of Rome to be concluded by 1st July, 1973. As I have made clear, the policies we have put forward are consistent with the treaty and with Community policies.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. JOHN POULSON (BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make the further statement which I promised last Thursday on matters arising out of the public examination in bankruptcy of Mr. John Poulson.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has this afternoon issued the following statement:
The Inspector General in Bankruptcy has forwarded to the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions the Official Receiver's Preliminary Report of his investigations into the conduct and affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson. After consultation with the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, the Director has requested the Metropolitan Police to conduct an investigation and to report to him.
That is the end of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement.
The police investigation will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there are grounds for instituting any criminal proceedings.
In these circumstances, it would clearly be wrong for the Government to establish any other form of inquiry, at least until the outcome of the police investigation is available and a decision has been made upon any prosecution.
In addition to the thorough inquiries which the police will now undertake, the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to use its investigatory powers under the Companies Acts.
Mr. W. G. Pottinger Secretary of the Department for Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, is being suspended from duty for the time being. I understand that Mr.


E. G. Braithwaite, Secretary of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board, is also being suspended.
In this connection there is one other matter of which I should inform the House. I have received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has asked me to read the following extract from it to the House:
We discussed the assertions made by Mr. Poulson during his bankruptcy hearing. Among them there was one referring to myself, to the effect that before I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as matter either for criticism or for investigation. However, there are matters not relating to me that do require investigation, and I entirely agree that this should be carried out in the normal way on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The difficulty arises that the task must fall upon the Metropolitan Police, and in my particular office as Home Secretary I am Police Authority for the Metropolis. We agreed that it would not be appropriate for me to continue to hold this office while the investigations are being pursued, in view of the fact that my name has been mentioned at the Hearing.
My right hon. Friend's letter continues:
You were good enough to suggest that I might for the time being hold some other office in your Government, but this I do not wish to accept. For more than twenty years now I have held office continuously, as a Minister, or a member of the Shadow Cabinet. I think I can reasonably claim a respite from the burdens of responsibility and from the glare of publicity which, inevitably, surrounds a Minister and, inexcusably, engulfs the private lives even of his family.
I have replied to my right hon. Friend that, though I understand and respect the reasons for his decision to leave the Government, it is only with the greatest reluctance that I have accepted it.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will share not only my deep regret at my right hon. Friend's going now but also my hope that it will not be long before he is able to resume his position in the public life of this country.
The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Lord President to be Home Secretary. He will hold this office in conjunction with the office of Lord President and Leader of the House.

Mr. Edward Short: I thank the right Gentleman for his statement. May I

say how very sorry we are to hear the reference to his right hon. Friend? I am sure that I carry the whole House with me in saying that in this his right hon. Friend has acted in the best traditions of the public service in this country.
We think it perfectly right and proper that if the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions think that there are matters to be investigated they ought to be investigated first by the police. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this investigation will not prejudge the question whether at the end of it, there is a full public inquiry if that is considered necessary, because, clearly, there may be matters in this affair which, while not founding a prosecution, nevertheless require further investigation in the public interest?
Finally, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we fully recognise that there is considerable public concern and anxiety on this matter which ought to be allayed, but at the same time we do not think that it ought to be allowed to degenerate into a witch-hunt of any kind?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which he has personally explained to me—for the kind things he has said about my right hon. Friend. It was, indeed, in the highest traditions of the public office. I think that the House will appreciate what a deep personal blow this is to my colleagues and myself.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question, no action which is taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way precludes a later inquiry if that should be deemed necessary.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that I and my colleagues, who have unashamedly and unreservedly pressed for an inquiry into this matter, welcome the nature and the throughness of the inquiry that the Prime Minister has mentioned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we respect the decision of the Home Secretary in this particular matter, where the important factor is that there should be a thorough and swift inquiry to clear those who are entitled so to be cleared and to ascertain the facts? Is he aware that it is the view of the whole House that at the end of the day two things will happen: the


facts will be established, and, without prejudging the issue, we hope that the resignation of the Home Secretary will be seen to have been of a purely temporary nature?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the last part of his remarks. I ought, perhaps, to emphasise to the House what many will already recognise, which is that this is a very complicated matter, and however swiftly those who are making the inquiries work, I am afraid that it will take a considerable time.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On this very melancholy occasion, will my right hon. Friend rest assured that I would claim no monopoly for the sympathy which a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have to him personally in having to make this very grievous announcement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nobility of the extracts he has quoted today from the letter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is typical of what we know him to have been ever since we had the honour of serving with him in the House from the day he came to it?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly true. Both letters will be published in full in the customary way.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect to the Prime Minister, there is a matter of concern in this, and that is the relationship between the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police. Is it not the case that from time immemorial the Director of Public Prosecutions takes his own decision on these matters as to whom he should prosecute and, indeed, as to whether a prosecution should be undertaken? Is it not further the case that the Home Secretary, in his capacity as police authority, which is certainly concerned with matters of payment and uniform, and that sort of question, has no relationship with the Metropolitan Police as to what police action is taken in an individual case? Therefore, in those circumstances, why did the Prime Minister accept the Home Secretary's resignation? Without prejudging the issue, would it not have been preferable for the Home Secretary to have retained his position, for the constitutional position regarding the Home Secretary and his

relationship with the Metropolitan Police to have been explained, and for us all to have tried to avoid what my right hon. Friend called a witch-hunt until the facts are established, instead of going through this process, which I dare say may result in the Home Secretary returning to the Government?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend considered this matter carefully, as indeed I considered it myself, and both of us took the best advice available to us. My right hon. Friend came to the conclusion in the public interest that it would not be understood if he remained Home Secretary while an inquiry of this kind was taking place. I suggested to him, as he stated in his letter, that any difficulty could be avoided by his accepting another office in Her Majesty's Government. For the reasons which he explained in his letter, he decided not to accept.
The constitutional position was most carefully examined, but my right hon. Friend himself decided, in the interests of the public service, that it was right that he should not continue to be Home Secretary while the inquiry was carried out.

Mr. William Hamilton: What machinery has the Prime Minister in mind for dealing with the Civil Service side of this matter? He has announced that Mr. Pottinger has been suspended, but he will know that other civil servants' names have been mentioned in the Poulson matter and related matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on this matter? Will he further impress upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, now Home Secretary too, the vital importance of having a debate in the House about a Select Committee on Members' Financial Interests? The right hon. Gentleman's statement today makes no contribution to the solution of that particular aspect of the problem.

The Prime Minister: Those members of the Civil Service who are involved in this case will be subject to the examination carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I have been advised by the Head of the Civil Service as to the kind of action which should be taken in the case of each of those involved. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's


question, my statement was dealing solely with the matters of this case. The position remains, as the Leader of the House has told the House that he is prepared to accept representaions on this matter and to consider a debate.

Mr. Ross: Do I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions will conduct the inquiry himself in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the rôle played here is the rôle played there by the Crown Office and by the Lord Advocate? Does this inquiry extend to Scotland? How will it be conducted? Surely it will not be conducted there by the Metropolitan Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions?

The Prime Minister: I said in my statement that the Lord Advocate had been fully consulted on this matter, and he has advised on any matters affecting Scotland. As I think the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, the examination in bankruptcy was carried out in England and, therefore, the inquiries will be carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions with the help of the Metropolitan Police. Naturally, if inquiries are required in Scotland the necessary arrangements can be made.

Mr. Harper: As Mr. Poulson is a constituent of mine and my constituency has received adverse publicity in relation to this matter, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time for the air to be cleared, and would that not best be done by holding a public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921?

The Prime Minister: I gave very careful consideration to that, but when the recommendation was that the Director of Public Prosecutions would institute police inquiries, I concluded that it would be absolutely wrong to have any other form of inquiry taking place at the same time. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the report of the Royal Commission on Tribunals and the relevant part first, paragraph 64, which states:
It has long been recognised that from a practical point of view it would be almost impossible to prosecute a witness in respect of anything which emerged against him in the course of a hearing before a Tribunal of Inquiry.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that normally at any tribunal all those who give evidence are immediately

granted immunity. Therefore, that would exclude any possibility of prosecution, if found to be desirable. I believe, therefore—I think that the House will agree—that it is right that the law should take the normal course, and, as I have said in answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, this does not preclude any later form of inquiry should that be desirable.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Did the Prime Minister say what will be the nature of the liaison between the Metropolitan Police and the investigating staff of the Department of Trade and Industry during their inquiries? Will they be working separately? Is the Prime Minister aware that I think I am reflecting the views of the House as a whole when I say that the course of action taken by the former Home Secretary was in the circumstances the right course as it was the honourable course?

The Prime Minister: I thank the former Attorney-General for the views he expressed in the last part of his supplementary question.
As to the question of liaison, all the information which becomes available to the Department of Trade and Industry will be made available to the Metropolitan Police investigation. I would prefer not to go into the details of this at the moment, for reasons which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEREAL PRICES

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement concerning cereals.
As Ministers have always undertaken to do on their return from Brussels, I would like to inform the House that we have now agreed with the Council of the European Communities the starting points for the transitional arrangements for cereals from 1st February, 1973. These will take the form of two regulations. One sets out the principal intervention centres and the prices at each, in the case of the United Kingdom, for wheat and barley. The second sets out the compensatory amounts applicable in each of the acceding States, except Norway, for these and other cereals.
These amounts have been calculated by reference to present parities. It is understood that they will be adjusted, should there be any change in the parity of any of the member States concerned, in order to achieve the objectives of the transitional mechanisms in the Act of Accession.
The aims of these regulations are: first, to secure that our own prices rise by no more than the normal monthly increases when we adopt the pricing system of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement being made this afternoon is a very important and complicated one. It is rather difficult to hear what the Minister is saying. Can we have a little more silence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am doing my best to get hon. Members to keep order. I hope they will.

Mr. Prior: The second aim is to establish the principal intervention centres and the initial levels of prices at each on a basis which will support, but not replace, marketing outlets for our producers, maintain and develop sound patterns of trading, and provide the necessary incentives for the disposal of feed wheat through de-naturing.
On prices, as the House already knows, we have agreed with the Community that our market prices will be progressively increased during the transitional period until by the beginning of 1978 they reach the full Community levels. During the transitional period, when prices will be at the different levels in different parts of the Community, it will nevertheless be necessary to ensure that trade within the Community flows freely without causing market confusion. This will be achieved by the system of compensatory amounts, which represent the difference between our starting prices and Community prices.
The regulations prescribe only principal intervention centres, but additional centres may be established.
Coming to intervention prices, we have taken the Duisburg price for the West, which is the area of greatest deficit. The prices at Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool and Avon mouth will be £28·31 for wheat and £24·39 for barley a long ton.
On the East side, the surplus side, we have taken different bases for prices for wheat and barley. Hence at Tilbury, our largest importing port, we have a Rotterdam wheat price, this giving £28·03 a long ton. For the smaller East Coast ports, we have a price related to Antwerp, this giving £27·81 at Aberdeen, Leith, Newcastle, Hull, King's Lynn and Southampton. Cambridge has been chosen as the principal inland centre, and the price there will be £26·50. These prices are all for wheat.
For barley, we have agreed to a price a little above Rouen, which is the lowest-priced port in the Community. This will result in a price of £23·52 a long ton at the same ports as those listed for wheat on the East and South Coasts. The Cambridge price will be £22·25 a long ton.
All these prices will increase on the first of each month until 1st July by the increase in the Community scale; namely, 45p a ton for wheat and 36p a ton for barley.
The same increases will apply to the threshold prices—which are the same as our old minimum import prices—which will determine the level of external protection against third country imports and which on 1st February, 1973, for wheat, barley and maize will be respectively £31·20, £27·07 and £28·30 a long ton.
I am sure that producers, traders and users will welcome the fact that we now have agreement to the arrangements that will apply initially in the transitional period. These do not involve any substantial change, and will produce a smooth adjustment of prices. For consumers, these will be only marginally higher than under present arrangements.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has said that he will introduce two regulations. Although this is a matter for the Leader of the House, we should be grateful if he could tell us something about the timetable for debating these, because naturally we shall have to study them carefully.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly said in an intervention, this is an important and complicated statement affecting the cereal industry and, in the end, the consumer. How many people will be employed at the intervention centres? This is an import-


ant matter as there are to be additional centres.
According to the report in today's Financial Times, in the discussions with the Commission Britain wanted
a higher intervention price for the West Coast than the 66·86 units of account proposed by the Commission.
What has happened about this? What was the Commission's attitude?
As to the percentage increase, the Minister said that our own prices would rise by no more than the normal monthly increase when we adopt the pricing system of the European Community. What is the normal monthly percentage increase?

Mr. Prior: These are draft regulations which have been agreed with the Council of the European Communities but which have now to be approved. The House, as will become the custom, will have to consider how best to debate draft regulations. This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for active consideration between the two sides of the House.
The intervention centres will be places where grain can be brought in at the intervention price. I see no reason why in the early years of transition there should be any need for intervention centres to operate to buy grain. I think that they will become much more points of reference for intervention in its other forms, such as de-naturing and admixture. The present staff at intervention centres is small. The Home Grown Cereals Authority will be responsile for this work.
The report in this morning's Financial Times about the Government wishing for a higher intervention price on the West Coast is accurate. We wanted to get as high a price on the West Coast for intervention as we could to make it possible for grain to be shipped from the East of England, which is the surplus area, to the West. In the course of negotiation we accepted what we thought was a fair compromise, both sides moving to what they regarded as a reasonable position.
As for the percentage increase, just as in past years since the introduction of minimum import prices for wheat and barley our minimum import price has gone up each month, so from 1st February onwards there will be the increase I have mentioned of 45p a ton for wheat and 36p a ton for barley. That is a very small increase over and above that which

would have occurred under our own arrangements. Of course, in the five years of transition our prices will have to rise to Common Market levels, and, as the House will know, there will be considerable increases in prices over that period. [Interruption.] I have never tried to dodge this issue and I do not believe anyone else has. There will be considerable increases in the prices of feeding stuffs and this is exactly as forecast in the 1970 White Paper.

Sir Robin Turton: Surely my right hon. Friend the Minister can say if he intends to table a Motion under the affirmative Resolution procedure so that we can have a proper debate on the regulations? Has he laid down any minimum quantities of de-natured wheat that can be sold by any one farmer?

Mr. Prior: On the latter part of the Question I have already announced minimum quantities for grain being bought under intervention. I think I am right in saying that minimum quantities for de-naturing by incorporation has been fixed at 30 tons in a single month. My right hon. Friend's first question is a matter for the House to decide, because it involves not just these two draft regulations but the whole gamut of regulations which the House will have to approve over the period from now onwards.

Mr. Mclennan: I understand from what the Minister said that the amounts of the intervention prices have been calculated with reference to existing parities. What advantage was there in doing this in view of the uncertainty about what the parity will be when these prices become operative? Was it not a little premature, if not unnecessary? Will the Minister say what consultations he has had with the National Farmers Union prior to reaching agreement with the Community? He has said that he thinks that producers will be satisfied but has he any prior knowledge of what the National Farmers Union was looking for?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we hope to return to a fixed parity by the time of accession. For the moment, therefore, we have taken the parity as it existed and we shall make any necessary adjustment when we enter. If we had waited to fix prices, as the hon. Member suggests,


until the parity was stabilised it would have been impossible to reach agreement now, and agreement is of vital importance to the grain industry and farming industry generally. I was very keen that we should take this step. It is a perfectly normal step to take, and it has happened before when other currencies have been floating.
We have had the closest contact with the National Farmers Union. I have not been in touch with it this morning since I have been back only a few hours but I have no reason to think it will dissent greatly from the intervention centres we have chosen or from the prices.

Mr. Body: My right hon. Friend will agree that there is a wide range in the quality of cereals. Will any regulation be needed to impose a system of grading or other tests for quality? Can the Minister further confirm that in the Community most of the intervention centres impose very high standards before the grain is accepted and only pay the intervention price on high quality grain?

Mr. Prior: That position will apply just as much to us. We shall have high standards applying to moisture content and the quality of grain. I very much hope that farmers will not regard the intervention price as the price which they will get for their grain. If they market it properly they should do considerably better. For us as a deficit supplier of grain on our own market, we should get a better price than the intervention price and it will only be in times of surplus that we shall be driven back on to intervention. I am hoping very much therefore that farmers will seize the opportunity to market their grain more effectively or to use it themselves and take advantage of the premium which will come about from de-naturing.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Minister agree that by far the best area for specialisation is in the production of meat in the enlarged Community and that therefore it is in our interest to get the feed stuff prices, particularly barley prices, as low as possible? The Minister has said that for the five-year period our prices will have to rise to the Community price. Has he entirely discounted that both European and world factors may over that period bring European prices down?

Mr. Prior: I have not discounted that and nothing I have said should in any way convey that I necessarily expect Community prices to stay at their present level. It would be unrealistic to expect them to fall far, but we believe that it is in our interest to keep cereal prices as low as is consistent with a reasonable return on capital invested. I believe that Community grain prices are too high, so we shall certainly be exercising all our powers of persuasion to stabilise the position.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching these agreements. They are necessarily somewhat complicated. Will he therefore ensure that the figures are made available to small farmers, possibly in leaflet form in as simple a way as possible so that they are fully informed about what is involved? Will he say whether the centres will be reviewed annually or are they fixed permanently? Will he confirm that cereal deficiency payments will continue during the transitional period, because there is still some doubt among some farmers on the matter?

Mr. Prior: I willingly confirm the last part of the supplementary question. Guaranteed prices will go on just as normal until the intervention price or the market price exceeds the guaranteed price and there is no longer a need for it. This year, therefore, and I imagine next year too, farmers will have a period in which to run themselves in on the new system without any fear that their prices are unprotected by guarantees. As for trying to explain the system to farmers and the trade, we are considering every means of publicity on what is, by its very nature, a complicated scheme.

The intervention centres which have been chosen have been agreed with the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and I do not expect them to be changed. But if we need to we can add secondary centres to the existing centres. We shall have to see how the system works over the next year or two, and I have told my colleagues on the Council of Ministers that if we find that the flow of grain and the pattern of trade are not satisfactory we shall go back to them.

Mr. Jay: Will the Government's battle against inflation be assisted by this policy


of artificially and unnecessarily raising food and feeding stuff prices?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman is merely repeating arguments that he has adduced for a long time. I believe that both in the national interest and in the agricultural interest we shall achieve higher standards of living for our community as a whole by entry into the Comon Market, and that is what counts.

Mr. Shore: These are complicated matters, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining them to us. But can he clear up a point about approval of the proposals? When he spoke of regulations, was he referring to what we normally understand by regulations—matters requiring approval by the House—or to Euro-regulations, about which we have no opportunity to express our wishes?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has examined and debated this topic over a period of several months. He knows perfectly well that these are regulations of the Community. [Interruption.] Of course they are regulations of the Community, otherwise what on earth did I go to Brussels for? They are in draft form, and it will be up to the House to decide how it wishes to debate these matters.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must safeguard the business of the House. We have a most important debate ahead, and we must get on.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL POLICY

Mr. Rhodes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the validity of legislation now passing through Parliament in the light of the challenge being made to it by the German representatives to the European Economic Community Commission subsequent to our entry into the Community on 1st January, 1973, as agreed on Third Reading of the European Communities Bill in the House of Commons.
I can be very brief. The obvious confusion in this Chamber alone, never mind in industry outside, about the validity

of the laws we are now passing through the House was clear from the questions asked by hon. Members today. It is a point of fact that the Commission is considering representations by the German representatives whether legislation we are now discussing in the House—matters concerned with the future financial grants to industry for regional aid under the Industry Bill and the Finance Bill—will be valid after we enter the Community next year.
I believe that this is a matter of some urgency for the House. I cannot see the point of the House continuing to debate night after night, week after week, long complicated legislation if in certain particulars where the Government refuse to accept Amendments we may well find that in another place, where we are not represented, and where we shall not be represented until after 1st January, 1973, there will be a question whether it is valid after that date.
The European Communities Bill has passed through the House and has had its Third Reading. It has accepted Article 92 of the Treaty, the very article which we are told in Press reports the Germans are now quoting, quite rightly under the terms of the Treaty, to seek an amendment to legislation which we are about to pass through the House.
This is a matter of urgency, because how can the House contemplate, for example, the coming Parliamentary Recess, if we ever get there, or the legislative programme which will follow between then and the next Session, when we do not know for certain whether the laws which we have already begun to pass through the House are self-contradictory? This is a situation of hopeless confusion.
I am not arguing the case for the particular point of view being put by the Germans, but it is obvious to any fair-minded person that there is hopeless confusion. Therefore, as a matter of urgency the House should discuss the German initiative.
I have warned in the House and elsewhere for many years that this problem would arise. As a Tyneside Member with deep problems of unemployment in my area, I desperately want industrialists in the North to know exactly what will be the permitted financial position after


1st January, and the industrial workers will want to be reassured about regional aid to the area. An emergency debate might at least clarify some of those points.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

the validity of legislation now passing through Parliament in the light of the challenge being made to it by the German representatives to the European Economic Community Commission subsequent to our entry into the Community on 1st January, 1973, as agreed on Third Reading of the European Communities Bill in the House of Commons.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me adequate notice of his intention to raise the matter. I have given it the most careful consideration, but I am unable to accede to his request.

INVESTIGATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that the archaeological potential of a development site should be considered in applications for planning permission.
I apologise to hon. Members for delaying them for a few more minutes before we turn to the important debate which is to follow.
The main aim of the Bill is to seek to prevent the destruction, with no record, of the archaeology of town centres. It seeks to implement one of the recommendations in an excellent but somewhat disturbing report prepared by the Council of British Archaeology, called, "The Erosion of History". In this country we face a paradox. On the one hand there is increasing public interest in archaeology, but because of the rapid redevelopment of towns, largely because of the needs of the motor car, on the other hand we face a situation in which, to quote the opening words of the introduction to the report,
The physical evidence for the history of the British people is being destroyed on an immense scale, at an increasing pace, and often without record.
The scale of the crisis is such that it is likely that in the next 20 years the archaeological value of about one-fifth of those historic towns which remain to us for study will be destroyed, and about two-fifths will be redeveloped in lesser ways. Essentially, the problem arises because present statutory requirements are inadequate. There are powers for local authorities to intervene to protect sites of archaeological interest, but the record shows that those powers are not sufficiently used. In towns, urban sites of archaeological interest are rarely scheduled because of the difficulties with occupied property of consulting and notifying a large number of property owners. But if a site is not listed there is no protection under the ancient monuments legislation. The archaeological potential need not be considered at any stage. Therefore, there is no effective protection for buried remains.
In many cases the potential is not considered because of ignorance. I can cite cases from my own constituency, where there was the urgent building of a new

police headquarters. When the land was transferred to the police authority, the new owners had no knowledge of what lay buried underneath. At some time later, a city archaeologist was appointed. By the time she investigated and the excavations were done, it was found that underneath lay possibly the finest stage of Roman defences in a modern occupied urban area. By then it was too late, because the design had been completed and the building had been costed. At least part of the remains, possibly the best part, will have to be covered up.
A report by the Chief Executive of Lincoln stated that the absence of a comprehensive policy for archaeology in the past had led to a number of missed opportunities. This should not happen again in Lincoln, and I hope that it will not happen again. It is a city with a uniquely rich historical past, as a Roman city, a Danish settlement, a mediaeval city and a city with major redevelopment planned.
Looking at the matter in general, we see that one of the remedies proposed by the Council for British Archaeology is what I seek to provide in the Bill. It would impose a statutory duty on all local authorities to find out whether there was an archaeological potential and then to consider it in granting planning permission. I am not asking that archaeological considerations should prevail, simply that they should be considered; and what happens can be left to the good sense of a planning authority. What is entailed by the duty to find out is that in some 800 or so historic towns there should be an archaeological town map if there is not one already. Where there is a resident archaeologist, this presents no difficulties.
In small towns and other places it may well seem difficult, but it may not be so because certainly the Council for British Archaeology could provide a town map of this kind in smaller places in about three or four weeks. There is no reason why a group of small towns should not band together to form a joint archaeological committee as the Council for British Archaeology is recommending. If this is done, say, within a period of three years, then the record of the past could be infinitely better safeguarded than it is at present.
It may be argued that this could mean delay, but this need not be so; it requires


only that there should be early consideration before plans have to be altered. We can see that this is so by the experience at Winchester where there has been the most extensive archaeological operation in the United Kingdom, if not in Europe in the last 11 years. Because of good relations with the local authority I understand that there has not been a single occasion of delay. Again, it might be said that there would be extra expense, but this need not be so, and in most cases the expense could be saved if the archaeological potential were considered at an appropriately early stage. If this were not so, it would be quite appalling if the very limited funds, or some of them, made available for archaeological excavation were spent on compensation. It would be particularly serious at a time when the amount which is being spent on archaeology is being reduced from what was envisaged at the start of the financial year. I hope, therefore, that this modest but important Bill is a proposal that commends itself to the House and that the House will give me leave to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Taverne, Mr. David Clark, Mr. Green, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Maude, Mr. Dalyell, and Mr. Faulds.

INVESTIGATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Bill to require that the archaeological potential of a development site should be considered in applications for planning permission; presented accordingly, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — NORTH-WEST REGION

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House, noting with alarm that the North-West Region has suffered increased unemployment which has almost doubled in the past two years, and deeply concerned at the lack of job opportunities caused by the contraction of cotton, coalmining, and now, steel and heavy engineering, fears that the Government's belated and forced reversal of economic and regional policies will be applied with insufficient determination to remedy a desperate condition; and condemns the damaging and reactionary nature of the Government's social, housing and industrial policies as applied in the Region.
The last debate we had on the North-West was initiated by Mr. Speaker, who was then on the Opposition benches. That was in December, five years ago. It occurred after the Hunt Committee was set up but before it had reported. I mention that to give an indication of how rare it is that we have these debates in the House. Because there are so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends and hon. Members who want to speak I think it will be necessary to ask, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would ask, for a considerable degree of brevity by all speakers.

Hon, Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Sheldon: I see that I have the approval of the House so far.
The problems of the North-West have increased since the debate nearly five years ago. For those of us to whom the North-West is our home it is with a great deal of sadness and even bitterness that we see what has happened during the intervening years.
As the Hunt Report says, the North-West is the oldest industrial area in the world. In the mills and factories were produced the wealth that enabled us to play an imperial rôle. The British Empire produced the trade and the North-West produced the wealth that made it work. In the 19th century half the exports of the country came from the mills and factories of our part of the country, and whole countries and even continents were


clothed by the products of our factories. Africa, India, China, South America, Australia—all were clothed from the vast production that came from the cotton industry, created by the native genius of those working in the mills throughout the North-West.
It was at that time that our industrial landscape took shape, and it is the fault of those who created it, but even more it is the fault of those who came after, that it remains as it does today, the monument to the energy of the industrial pioneers and those who subsequently did not see fit to make the improvements necessary in the light of improving standards in living conditions. We note today that the Secretary of State for the Environment is undertaking a study of the North-West which I understand will cost £250,000. I also understand that this will be ready some time next year. I would be pleased if we could be told how this study is going on.
One thing we know is that the North-West Region has had studies in plenty. Basically, the problems are known, and, while we are always anxious to find out more of the details of these problems and how they can be dealt with, at the end of the day it is not studies but action that will be needed. The basic problem of the North-West is the problem of declining industry. The trouble is that in many of the areas where we thought we had achieved some diversification of industry we find that firms are closing.
We know the problems of the cotton industry, with the Board of Trade in our opinion too anxious to consider its world rôle and not anxious enough to consider the peculiar problems of an industry too open to receive the imports of countries which are balanced by the exports of those other parts of the United Kingdom. In dealing with these problems we have many of my hon. Friends—the hon. Members for West Houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond), Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett)—who are deeply interested in this. In particular I wish to mention the late Jack McCann who used to raise and deal with these problems. The House will miss him very much in these debates. He was a man much liked, much loved, who will be very greatly missed over the following years.
We know too, of the problems of the coal industry, the pit closures, which are changing the economy of a number of our towns in the North-West, and if my hon. Friends the Members for Ince (Mr. McGuire) and Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and other of my hon. Friends are fortunate enough to be called I am sure that they will wish to expand on this. Added to this problem we have the closure of the steel mills of Irlam and Openshaw, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) and others will wish to refer.
Not only do we see these newer industries closing and suffering unemployment problems but we also see those industries involving a high level of skill declining. In particular we note with deep regret the contraction of our heavy engineering industry which provided most of the prosperity in the post-war years. The effect of the decline on industries has given rise to very grave fears about the kind of industries which are still in difficulties, which we hoped would be the expanding industries of the future.
Let me give an illustration of the kind of problems facing us. In 1969, the last full year in which the Labour Government was in office, the unemployment figure was 73,000. In June, 1972, the last month for which we have figures, we had a figure of 136,000, nearly double. I do not want to make only party points but it is absolutely clear that the problems with which the Labour Government coped, not with the degree of success that we would have wished to see—at least we succeeded in keeping the position reasonably stable—have returned and the position has been seriously weakened over the past two years.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Sheldon: I hope that I shall not have to give way very much because I have asked that everyone should keep their speeches as brief as possible to provide time for as many hon. Members as possible to take part.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency unemployment more than doubled, from 340 to 855, during the time of the Labour Government?

Mr. Sheldon: It would be interesting to know the figures since the Government came to office. But the important point is that, although there has been a welcome fall in unemployment in the North-West during the past six months, we have had only one-third of the fall in unemployment which has happened in the rest of the country. If there were some unspecified and unguessed-at time lag responsible for this, perhaps there would not be the same reason for concern. But nobody is able to show that there is any such time lag in operation. The level of national vacancies has increased by 51½ per cent. in the past six months, whereas in the North-West it has been less than half that amount. Therefore, even if the national economic situation improves slightly, we are getting nothing like that level of improvement in the North-West.
The North-West had a big problem during the whole of the 1950s and 1960s; namely, the problem of the cotton and coal industries. But it is much worse now. What frightens us in the North-West is that a new scale of problems seems to be arising. In the past there has been diversity as different parts of the region had different degrees of success or failure. In the past the problems of Preston were not the same as those of Manchester; the problems of Liverpool were not the same as those of North-East Lancashire. Today unemployment is the problem of all parts of Lancashire and Cheshire.
When the North-West Group of Labour Members of Parliament voted last year in favour of intermediate area status for the North-West, the problem of unemployment and of over-capacity was affecting all parts. We welcome, as the whole of the North-West does, the giving of intermediate area status, but it must be remembered that it was the increasing scale of the problem which made that status necessary—in fact, essential.
The North-West has suffered too long from the consequences of mergers. I am not against mergers. They can be very valuable and can bring increased efficiency. There can be an increasing concentration of production whereby costs can be reduced. But what we object to is that concentrations of industry have resulted in the closing of plants and the North-West has been much more affected than other areas where firms have merged with firms in the North-West. This might

be partly because of the outdated industrial premises in the North-West. However, it must be partly due to the fact that the factories which remained open tended to be nearer to the head office, and the head office was not often situated in the North-West.
Coupled with this change is the decline in job opportunities, which is continuing. When I was an engineering apprentice some years ago, I heard stories about apprentices who were fired as soon as they reached the age of 21 because of the surplus of labour and the fact that the older man with greater experience was the better worker to employ. I always thought, and I still think, that this is the cruellest unemployment of all—the discarding of a young man just when he has learned his craft and is ready to put it to proper use. The scars of this kind of unemployment are sharper and more long-lasting possibly than any other. I know of two large national organisations where young boys have been fired at the age of 21 or have been informed that they will not be kept in employment when their apprenticeship ends.
But it is not simply job opportunities in industry which are required; we need job opportunities in office employment. This is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of opportunity, and we have to take it very seriously. Here I should like to quote from the North-West Industrial Development Association's memorandum. I pay tribute to the work of the association, doing, as it does, the work of keeping before people engaged in industry and in the region the problems and perhaps providing some of the solutions for the economic difficulties in the North-West. The association states:
A serious weakness in the new package of regional measures is, in the Association's view, the complete absence of any strong initiative by the Government to promote office development in the North-West and other assisted areas.
We are awaiting the report on the potential for decentralising Civil Service work, and we look forward to early action in this respect. But this is a serious weakness. There has been a massive increase in clerical work and in pay in the London area. For example, female clerical workers in the London area earn 18 per cent, more than those doing similar work in the North-West. There is much scope for an


increase in office employment in our region.
However, one of the major problems confronting us is industrial dereliction. Those who may not be familiar with our part of the country will be familiar with the kind of landscape which is rapidly disappearing but which is still present in many areas. The North-West Industrial Development Association has called for an increase in the industrial dereliction grant to local authorities to 100 per cent. I am happy to support that. I fail to see why responsibility for the industrial slag-heaps and decayed buildings in the areas should be charged to the region concerned. They were the faults of the past. I must ask: who benefited from these outrages? It was not the people of Lancashire and Cheshire. It was the country which benefited, and the country must restore the area.
I welcome Operation Eyesore. I pay tribute to the introduction of the scheme. It needs to be pursued with vigour and more resources. When one goes around the North-West and talks to the people, one is struck by the fact that they feel that they are worse off than those in other parts of the country. This shows itself in pay. Earnings and wage rates in the North-West are lower than they are in more favoured parts of the country. This is known by the people concerned. The assertion, frequently made by the Government, that high unemployment is due to high wages is offensive to North-West workers when they compare their pay with the pay which is obtainable elsewhere. When the Foreign Secretary talks about greedy workers he causes a great deal of anger.
The trouble is that we have double standards. There is a standard for the businessman, for whom high profits and high earnings are good. This is held by the community to be efficient. It is said that they are the basis of our system and that this is the proper use of resources. When he makes high profits and consequential high earnings, he is, apparently, efficient and good. When the workers try to obtain high earnings, this is bad; this is greed.
It is these double standards which people find so objectionable. We must not have two standards—one for the employer and one for the employee. We

are one people, and the same standards must apply to both. We are one country, and the same rewards should be given to each of the regions. The people in the North-West are not inferior in any way; they are not inadequate. It is not like Italy where there are under-educated people and non-industrial populations and people have difficulty of assimilation in an industrial environment.
Our region is still the industrial heart of the country and the people have industrial skills which they are ready and willing to use. The North-West has work patterns which are highly relevant to modern needs, with tradition based on our women going out to work, with shifts readily manned, and with all the advantages of an industrial working population used to and willing to do the kind of work which industry requires to be done.
Despite all this, and despite the considerable industrial diversification which we have achieved, we are still faced with the industrial problems which I have described. The terrible, unanswerable reality is that the regions are in decline. It is not a question of some regions going up and some going down. Apart from London and the South-West, they are all in decline. It is because the pull of London and the South-East is too strong. Part of the reason is that the heads of our industrial companies too often situate themselves in London and the South-East. Too many industrial decisions affecting our future are being taken elsewhere. Management is too remote. That does not happen in other countries but it is one of the things peculiar to Britain.
Out of the top 100 industrial companies in Britain, 84 have their headquarters in London. In America, 29 out of the top 100 have their headquarters in New York, the fiancial capital. Europe, with the exception of France, is similarly diversified, with head offices dispersed. Whereas General Motors is in Detroit, British Leyland is in Berkeley Square; whereas Daimler-Benz is in Stuttgart, Ford and Chrysler are in London; whereas du Pont is in Maryland, ICI is in London; whereas Burlington Industries, the biggest textile group in America, has its headquarters in North Carolina, not only Courtaulds but Carrington and Vyella have their headquarters in London. It is impossible to understand why


other countries operate on the basis that their headquarters are where their manufacturing capacity is but this country does not. Other countries have had more success than we have had, and there may be something to learn from them.
To sum up—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) sums up, I hope that he will say something about the announced removal of the ceiling on cotton imports this January, which is a direct consequence of entering the Common Market and will crucify Lancashire cotton towns. How some people can still defend it I do not know. The quota must be restored on 1st January, otherwise we shall be in a terrible mess. I hope that my hon. Friend will strongly pursue the Minister on this point.

Mr. Sheldon: That was to be my next sentence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) for reinforcing the point.
I shall now sum up. First, the problems which we have discovered over the past few years have largely been increased by the Government. The "lame duck" philosophy, which may have had its disadvantages elsewhere, has been more disadvantageous to our region. Firms have closed down which will never reopen. Some of the solutions that the Government are proposing and have proposed are valuable. I am not willing to hide my welcome for many of their solutions, but they have to be considered in relation to the problems which the Government themselves have created and increased.
What is required by way of a solution? First, one of the important ways in which we have to deal with these problems is to reduce the pull of London, whether by disincentives or some other means. Next textile quotas must be introduced where they are not in force and must be reduced where they are too high. Here I must declare a personal interest.
The well-being of the textile industry is necessary for the North-West as it is for the whole of the country. That industry is happy and willing to compete on equal terms with the European Community, but it does not want to have

handicaps which industries in other countries do not bear. Hon. Members representing North-West constituencies have asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, consisting of trade unionists and Members of Parliament, to discuss that problem. We hope that the Secretary of State will agree, because it is a crucial issue. The industry has suffered repeatedly because the Department has pursued policies which may be advantageous to other industries but are deeply disadvantageous not only to the textile industry but to the whole of the North-West Region.
Next, we want to see dereliction grants increased to 100 per cent. so that the community as a whole will pay for chat which was created in its name, to the advantage of those who have suffered for so long. We now—my hon. Friend the Member for Ince certainly knows—that there are local authority areas where almost half the land is derelict. It is impossible for such local authorities to find the resources to improve the amenities of their areas.
We also want to see selective assistance given under the Industry Bill, related closely to unemployment. Blanket inducements may be valuable but they have limitations. We want to see money specifically given to creating viable jobs in the areas of greatest need. Finally, there needs to be a strong initiative to promote office development in the North-West.
At the end of this debate, it would be wrong if anyone had the impression that I or any of my hon. Friends have come to this House to beg for money. Today in industrial Britain there is a distortion based on no industrial logic. There are men with skills and the willingness to use them in one part of the country and there are decisions frequently taken at the other end. This debate is about reducing that distortion by means of Government action, and we and the people of the North-West ask that that be done.

4.58 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
welcomes the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government to schedule the whole of the North-West Region as an Intermediate Area;


recognises the extensive action already taken to produce greater economic growth and improvement in environmental conditions; and endorses the regional policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to spread national prosperity more evenly.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) commendably said a great deal in a short time. I shall do my best to follow him, at least in not using up too much time because I recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I hope that nobody on that account will criticise me if I do not mention certain topics. Inevitably, I shall have to leave out a number of matters of importance.
I do not find myself in a large measure of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman's prescriptions. The policy which he was urging to deal with regional development is close to Government thinking and practice. However, at times I quarrel with his diagnosis, which was alarmist.
The Motion can be fairly said to portray a picture of the North-West as hopelessly and helplessly slithering into decline. That is not the position. It is an area of great resources and potential. I shall describe some of the opportunities which exist for the area and show that there are not merely clear signs that the downward trend has been checked but positive signs of recovery.
We are concerned with the industrial and human problems of one region. We all know that the difficulties of the North-West have largely been caused over recent years by a low level of national economic activity. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not anxious to score only party points, and I hope that all hon. Members recognise that the national problems of recent years have been international in origin. It is fair to acknowledge that the situation which we took over a couple of years ago was deteriorating more seriously than was recognised.
The Government have, of course, undertaken more extensive measures than ever before to increase demand. Critics may now argue, with the advantages of hindsight, that, despite the unprecedented scale of that stimulation, it should have been produced even earlier. Having said that, I wonder whether anybody on either side of the House would seriously contest that the squeezes and the stagnation of

Labour's years in office have had no effect in the past two years. There is certainly a striking contrast between the inheritance of this Government and that of the Labour Government in the health of the regions. Six months after taking office the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to say that things in the North-West were absolutely booming and that investment was going ahead very fast. We could not at any point have said that about the situation that we found in the regions.
The index of production for May, the provisional June figure for retail sales and the reports that are coming in from many industries in nearly every region show that the economy is now reviving firmly, but very few people would take the view that the fact that we have had a long, hard struggle to produce that revival has nothing to do with the policies that immediately preceded our taking office. I do not want to dwell on this topic, but it is perhaps of importance to refer briefly to some of the alternative solutions that are now being posed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a very moderate speech, but there has just been published the "Labour Programme for Britain". Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I know, are as anxious as we are to assist in the regeneration of the regions and of the North-West by stimulating investment and encouraging a growing confidence, but what sort of encouragement to investors does that programme contain? It is clear on almost every page that Labour means to return to a policy of rapidly rising taxation and squeezed profit margins. Labour promises again to set up an agency—
to integrate industries and firms into the public sector".
Labour threatens overseas companies which are considering investing in this country with a range of measures specially directed against multi-national companies. I do not need to say that in the North-West, as in other regions, investment by foreign companies is extremely important. The suggestion in the Labour programme that the Government would require to take equity in the parent company of multi-national companies, as well as to appoint a director to the parent board, would, if it were taken seriously, hardly induce Ford, General Motors and others


who play an important part in creating employment in the North-West to expand their activities. Fortunately, however, I believe that most of this will not be taken seriously, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and others who have a firm grasp of realities will be able to do something about this programme before too long.
I turn now to the problems that particularly face the North-West. The region has experienced major structural changes over this past decade and more. Since 1959 employment in cotton textiles has halved. There have been big job losses in coal mining and in steel. Employment has been reduced, too, in shipbuilding and repairing, clothing and particular sectors of engineering, notably electric plant and machine tools. In some of these areas there is the prospect of further contraction.
There is, I know, much concern about the rationalisation of the steel industry and the British Steel Corporation's recent announcement about Irlam. I think, too, it is generally recognised on both sides of the House that if our steel industry is to be competitive this process of rationalisation cannot be halted. During phase 1 of the closure of Irlam, although 1,900 jobs were lost to the beginning of 1972, the great majority of the people who were displaced were absorbed into other industries. Against a background now of rising economic activity and falling unemployment, there are prospects of absorbing even more effectively those who are to be released from Irlam over the next two years.
Nobody can be in any doubt about the human problems that are posed by these changes. The figures I have given for the changes that the North-West has had to face over the last 10 years and more give some indication of the scale of the problem in the region. I hope that nobody is in any doubt of the importance of ensuring that new jobs are created in the region to compensate for those lost by the BSC's reorganisation and by several other such factors.
Much has been said—and the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred to it in his intervention—about anxieties in the textile industry over arrangements within the Common Market. We have taken on board the

industry's views about imports of low-cost cotton yarn, and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to discussions that I hope can be arranged in due course. There are negotiations due in the autumn about quotas on cotton textiles. The problems relating to imports of man-made fibres and polyester cotton in particular are at present under active consideration by the Government.
We should not forget that the textile industry as a whole has made it clear that it welcomes entry into the Common Market and is confident of its ability to compete with the textile industries of Europe. Looking back over the experience of the decade, one recognises that there has been an encouraging growth in activity in many other industries.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Do the Government intend to go ahead on 1st January with the proposal to remove the ceiling on textile imports? He must be aware that the textile unions are desperately concerned about this. The cotton industry has lost 300,000 jobs in 20 years, and this proposal would wipe out the remainder of the cotton industry. Whether or not we join the Common Market—of course, I hope that we do not—I hope that the Government at least will not comply with this condition of the Common Market because it will be critical not only to the cotton industry but to the light engineering industry which supplies the cotton industry.

Mr. Chataway: Generally speaking, we shall retain our existing rights to control imports of cotton textiles from developing countries. There are already Community arrangements with certain countries for restraining their exports. There are anxieties about cotton yarn, but the larger question is the principle of a comprehensive policy for restriction of textile imports into the whole enlarged EEC. There is clearly a balance to be struck between fair dealings with the developing countries and the protection of our own industry, for very good reasons. On entry into the Common Market some areas of the textile industry will benefit and some will not, but the textile industry as a whole has made it clear that it welcomes entry and sees considerable opportunities.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister saying that


the Government are prepared to sacrifice the yarn and spinning sections of the textile industry? That is the implication of the statement he has just made.

Mr. Chataway: No, I have not said anything to the House that is not known and has not been said on several previous occasions. I was correcting the impression given by the hon. Member for Salford, East, I am sure inadvertently, that all quotas came off cotton textiles. That is not so.

Mr. Morris: What about yarn?

Mr. Chataway: Cotton yarn is on the EEC common liberalisation list and this has been know for many months.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Chataway: I am telling the hon. Gentleman that nothing I have said has changed a position which has been known for a very long time. I have indicated the areas in which we are having discussions, and I hope he will forgive me if I turn to other areas. I am sure the House will not want my speech to be too long.
Looking back over the experience of the 1960s and late 1950s, we recognise that in the North-West there has been an encouraging growth in activity in many other industries. The engineering industry as a whole has grown, despite weak areas. The oil and chemical industries have invested heavily and, although there are some immediate investment problems, it is to be hoped that the substantial production gains of the past will continue. The food and drink industries are contributing useful gains. Most of the compensating industrial growth has come from established industry, but 60,000 jobs, principally in the motor industry, have been created since 1959 by newcomers to the region. Furthermore, much new employment has been contributed by the service industries.
Taking the whole of the past decade, it is clear that the region has had some real success in absorbing large structural losses and has a well diversified economy, but it has problems enough to justify its assisted area status. I have no doubt that investment is needed to cater for the manpower released by the declining industries.
The more recent figures are encouraging. It is true that the peak in unemploy-

ment came later in the North-West than to the rest of the country and that recovery also appears to have been a few months behind the rest of Britain. Leaving aside the figures for 1972, which were distorted by the coal strike, the national rate of unemployment began to decline after January, 1972, whereas the North-West did not see a turn-round until April. But by June unemployment in the North-West had fallen by 15,000 as compared with the corresponding April figure. On the other side of the coin, the number of unfilled vacancies in the North-West has been rising since January, 1972, and in June of this year the figure stood at 15,400, which was 3,000 more than in January.
It is against this rising trend that the region now faces the opportunities provided by the Government's new package of regional measures. I wish to draw attention to a few of the more important features of these measures. First, the scale of incentives offered to investment in the assisted areas is greater than ever before compared to the rest of the country. There are regional development grants of 20 per cent. to be paid towards the cost of buildings in qualifying industries throughout the region and 20 per cent. of plant and machinery costs are payable in addition in the development area and in Skelmersdale, and these are very substantial. This means that if these grants are taken together with tax relief it will enable profitable companies to recover more than half their expenditure on industrial projects in the development areas and 36 per cent. of expenditure on new buildings in the intermediate area.
Secondly—and this is a particularly important feature in the North-West—there is no discrimination against existing firms. Existing firms are enabled to modernise by abolishing the job link; that is to say, by no longer requiring that new employment must be created in order for an area to obtain assistance. The opportunity is now given to older industries in the North-West, of which there are many, to modernise their buildings. I believe that this can be of very great importance to the environment and in safeguarding employment for the future.
Thirdly, there are the provisions for selective assistance which will provide a flexible means of encouraging development in strategic industries and in areas within the region. I agree with the hon.


Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that there is an important function for selective assistance for the service industries. It cannot make sense to give a general grant to all service industries, because the majority are not mobile. Their existence and expansion depend on the level of economic activity in the area. There are some service industries, and headquarter officers are a good example, which are potentially mobile and which, given some help, may be induced to come into the region. It is of considerable importance that the region should attract more office development. I envisage this as a use to which the power in Clause 7 of the Industry Bill can be put.
Another important feature of the new arrangements is that there should be a greater level of devolution to the region than ever before. The Department's regional organisation in Manchester has been strengthened. The post of regional director has been upgraded, and the director will shortly be assisted by a regional industrial director from industry. The regional organisation, assisted by the Regional Industrial Development Board, will have a great measure of decision-making.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the request from the North-West that it should be given a grant for propaganda purposes? Certain areas have been given grants for this purpose, and we should like to know whether the Minister will look favourably at our request.

Mr. Chataway: I am considering this proposal from the North-West Industrial Development Association. A number of considerations are involved and we must look at the division of function between Government authorised bodies in the promotion of the region. I am prepared to look at the proposal.
There is now clear evidence that industry is very much interested in the North-West and in these new measures. At the end of last week, 1,131 firm inquiries were all recorded in my Department's regional office in Manchester. Among these are many which could have important employment implications.
Another indicator is the number of applications for industrial development

certificates. Since late March this year IDC approvals in the North-West have been very substantially higher than those for the corresponding period last year; the number is 30 per cent. higher. The area of factory space involved is 100 per cent. higher, and, most important, the estimates by applications of the number of new jobs is nearly 100 per cent. higher.
There are also signs of growing interest among service employers in the North-West as the gap between rents in London and the North-West widens. The Government have their part to play in providing greater office facilities and office jobs in the regions. Some 28,000 jobs have already moved from London, and another 19,000 are to follow. The computer PAYE centre at Bootle is going ahead, and a further fundamental review of possible dispersal of Government offices is nearing completion. It is hoped that conclusions will be available towards the end of the year.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in winding up will deal with a number of developments for which his Department is responsible. It is worth noting that the past two years have seen an unprecedented effort by the Government in terms of home improvement, clearance of derelict land and road building. In the last financial year, 29,000 cash grants for home improvements were given in the North-West compared with 8,600 in 1969–70. The road building programme built up to a peak of more than £65 million a year last year and is currently running at about £45 million. In the clearance of derelict land there has been an effort on a remarkable scale. The total approved programme is now 2,600 acres costing some £6¼ million. It should be remembered that in the development areas 85 per cent. of the cost of that programme is met by the Government, and in the intermediate areas 75 per cent. When the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggests that the 85 per cent. should be 100 per cent. he has to consider whether it is not desirable to have some local authority involvement. With rate support grant, which is given on the 15 per cent. which remains to be paid in the development area, it is a fairly modest proportion of the total cost which is now being met by the local authorities.

Mr. Sheldon: But even when a local authority has its land restored it still has to spend a considerable amount of money afterwards.

Mr. Chataway: Yes, but the point is that the difference between 85 per cent. and 100 per cent., in view of the fact that rate support grant is available, is pretty modest.

Mr. Laurance Reed: My right hon. Friend seems to be attempting to justify the discrepancy between 85 per cent. in development areas and 75 per cent. alsewhere. However, Liverpool has a very small amount of waste acres whereas an area east of Wigan has no less than 33 per cent. of its land classified as derelict area. Surely the grant should be equal throughout the area. Should not the element of discrimination between one part of Lancashire and another be ended?

Mr. Chataway: I do not want to engage in an argument with my hon. Friend about the relative needs of two places. But the general principle is right that there should be a differentiation between development areas and intermediate areas since the capacity of development areas to meet the costs involved is on the whole less than that of intermediate areas. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment may wish to reply further to that question.
All these measures, together with the expansion of training opportunities in the region, mean that the region now has a very great deal to offer industry. Shortly it will be served by one of the finest motorway and traffic systems in the country with fast roads to all parts and fast urban roads to ensure rapid access. Ring way, with growing freight and international passenger traffic, is the country's second highest airport. Merseyside's new dock at Seaforth and the introduction of modern handling methods at Manchester promise an important advance in the ports. The region's labour force has almost every kind of skill and industrial experience. There is no justification therefore, for selling the North-West short.
I do not believe that the Opposition's Motion gives encouragement to the recovery which is now getting under way. I hope that in due course it will be rejected. I hope, too, that there will be a

general recognition in the debate of the progress being achieved in the North-West and of the substantial opportunities which are now available.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: May I first take up the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about dereliction? Perhaps I might remind him that the Lancashire coalfield, with the exception of St. Helens, is outside the Lancashire development area. That is almost unique. Where-ever development areas are based on the contraction of the coal industry, invariably they are special development areas, let alone ordinary development areas. Until three years ago we in Lancashire did not even have St. Helens in the development area. For that reason we have never had the increased aid which the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) commented upon, and, therefore, our dereliction problem is more severe because of our lack of development area status.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the aid which intermediate status should bring. Again I remind him that the development area policy pre-supposes heavy unemployment in some areas and full employment in others. This is the assumption of mobile industry. When there are high rates of unemployment throughout practically the whole country there is not the same mobility of industry as existed previously. While I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is proved right in what he said, I suggest to him that unless there is a general improvement in employment levels throughout the country there will not be the kind of mobility that we both hope to see coming into the North-West Region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) reminded the House that Lancashire was probably the oldest industrial area in the world. At a time when great industrial changes have to be made, areas such as Lancashire suffer the worst. In my constituency, Stephenson had his wagon headquarters. In my time I have seen that go. I have also seen the coal mines go to a great degree, and now steel is in considerable trouble. I make no party point when I say that we have reached a phase where we see great institutions and firms leaving small areas which are utterly


dependent upon them for their economic life. We cannot be satisfied that they should wave us a fond farewell and leave us to pick up the pieces. We have reached the stage where those in boardrooms, whether in nationalised or private industries, should take account of the social consequences of their decisions.
During this phase it senems to me that both industrialists and Governments have proved themselves far more adept at eliminating jobs than at creating them. This is one of the enormous problems that we face. As the process of modernising our older industries continues the balance between the elimination and the creation of jobs will tilt adversely for reasons which I shall try to give in a moment.
Although we have seen heavy investment in the public sector we have been disappointed at the low level of investment in the private sector. When, as we hope, that picks up we shall see the swing of labour intensive industries to capital intensive industries. That is the object of the exercise. It may be that in the older industrial areas the process will show results out of all proportion to what they would show in industries which are more modern in their base than we are.
The Minister referred to improvement in the unemployment position. We welcome it. I agree there has been some small improvement from the disgraceful levels of a few months ago. But we must remember that we are now at the very height of seasonal employment. We are in the second half of July. I know from personal experience during my days at the old Ministry of Labour that the decline will begin two months from now. When we look at an unemployment level of 800,000 in July we must keep in mind the decline in seasonal employment which is the usual pattern from September onwards. We must not be too complacent because we seem to be a little better off at the moment than we were a short time ago.
For these reasons, the Government should do more in the sense of defining who accepts social responsibility for these great removals from which Irlam is suffering.
Recently the Secretary of State said that it was the responsibility of industry

to look after these matters. Is it or is it not? I believe there is responsibility on both the Government and industry in this respect. The nationalised industries argue "If you want us to be viable, do not put social costs on us." However, when they go to the Government, they are told that it is the responsibility of the industry. This cannot go on. We must have a clear definition about who accepts social responsibility for the great changes which are now taking place.
I will not go over the whole history of Irlam's development. However the whole economy and atmosphere of the area revolved on the steel industry and the fact that 5,000 of its inhabitants were based there. Therefore, its economy relied utterly upon it. The British Steel Corporation chooses to go at a time when the Lancashire Tar Distillers in the same area has said that there will be 130 redundancies during the year.
I have proved beyond doubt the profitability of Irlam. Its markets are within a 50-mile radius. Steel scrap is available for the electric arc furnaces, and so on. Following the decision of the BSC I asked for an independent inquiry about the viability of the Irlam Works. I would stand by the result of such an inquiry whether it should be closed or remain open. Having met the BSC, I am convinced that some of the gentlemen concerned are more worried about their £200 million investment at Scunthorpe, which may not be looking so rosy as it once did when it was a gleam in an engineer's eye, and are determined to eliminate steel producing capacity in other parts of the country. Therefore, I again ask the Minister to accept the need for an independent inquiry about the viability of Irlam.
The obvious alternative to employment in the Irlam Steel Works is in Trafford Park, once the biggest industrial estate in the world. There were 30,000 people employed in Metropolitan Vickers alone before Mr. Weinstock decided we had too many there. There was a great alternative for Irlam people there, but now that is in decline. Therefore, the alternative about which the Minister was confident quite frankly does not now exist.
Yesterday I had a near miss with a Question I wanted to ask the Department. It referred to the use of Section 15 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967. Section 15


gives the Minister power to stop development in the private sector which would be inimical of the development programme of the BSC. The Minister intimated that he would not use Section 15. He argued that it is the Government's policy to encourage investment and so increase efficiency in both sectors of the steel industry.
I call in aid an article from the Observer of 11th June, 1972, which describes therise of what is described as "mini" steel works. The article states:
Two Midland companies, F. H. Lloyd and Cooper Industries, announced plans last week to build a £3 million, 100,000 ton a year, mini steel works in the West Midlands.
It then refers to Richard Johnson and Nephew in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris).
It continues:
Tucked away in a corner of Kent, Sheerness Steel Company's £10 million, 57 acre works is now in operation, only 15 months after construction began. It's the first steel works to be built in the South-east of England, well away from the traditional steel producing areas. But then the whole idea of the mini steel works marks a sharp break from conventional steel industry thinking.
So, whilst thousands of steel workers throughout the development areas face unemployment, we see the rise in the South-East of the mini steel works whose capacity I shall refer to again in my quotation from the Observer article. It does not seem to make sense, especially as we have a report which predicts that the BSC will be confined to 28 million tons annually, that thousands of steel workers should be thrown on the unemployment heap. We see mini steel works being added to the private sector. The Secretary of State, who has power to stop this development, refuses point blank to use Section 15 of the 1967 Act.
The article goes on to deal with technical points with which I will not weary the House. However, it makes this point, which is worth consideration:
Sheerness's 200,000 tons a year of steel bars may seem a flea-bite compared with the BSC's annual output of 25 million tons. But Sheerness's 200,000 tons a year output of reinforcing bars compares with BSC's output in this sector of about 700,000 tons a year.
So they are coming precious near to the same kind of production of bars as the BSC.
Next Gerry Heffernan, a Canadian steel maker and one of the pioneers of the 'mini'. heard of the project, flew over to Britain and joined forces with Learmond, now deputy chairman and sales director of Sheerness.
The Canadian Government, faced with a domestic depression, offered a 10-year, $13 million loan on condition that the bulk of the plant's equipment was made in Canada. To complete the financial package, £2,650,000 of Sheerness loan stock and Ordinary shares was placed with institutional investors. Overall North American interests have a 64 per cent. stake while British investors hold the rest.
I am not complaining about foreign investment. I am pointing out that we are now seeing, as is predicted, the mini steel mill very much on the upsurge. Literally dozens of people are hoping to open steel mills in the private sector of the British steel industry. This is sheer lunacy. How can the BSC hope to look at its programme objectively when duplication on that scale is taking place? Section 15 was put into the 1967 Act to prevent that very thing. This is a question not for the BSC but for the Government. It may be that the BSC's policies are wrong—I think they are wrong in this respect—but on this issue it is a straight question for the Government. The Secretary of State has complete responsibility for deciding whether to use Section 15. It is sheer nonsense, sheer hypocrisy, for any Minister who says he is greatly concerned about what is happening throughout the places where steel has been made for so many years and where men have given their lives to the steel industry to allow duplication in places where there is no steel-making history while men are being thrown on the unemployment scrap heap in the way I have described.
I believe that the House is entitled to an answer on this. Before the debate ends we should ask why the Minister will not use Section 15. I assure him that there is great concern about this matter not only in Irlam but on this side of the House and throughout the country. I hope that by the time he comes to winding up the debate the hon. Gentleman will have received some information from the Department of Trade and Industry on what we consider to be one of the most vital matters imaginable.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I shall observe the mood of the debate and be brief.
It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), because the cause between us is a common one centred upon Irlam Steel Works. But before I come to that may I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to the late Jack McCann, who was a personal friend of mine. For 10 years it was my privilege to represent the Eccles division of Lancashire, and I knew Jack as a young man and saw him become mayor of that borough in 1955. He made a good contribution to local government, he made a splendid contribution to the House of Commons, and his going is to be regretted by us all.
I agree with so much of what was said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and by the right hon. Member for Newton that it is difficult to find those points of fundamental disagreement which divide the House of Commons on the whole future of the North-Western area. The right hon. Gentleman matched industrial efficiency with social consequences, and this seems to be vital in all industrial policy in an industrialised country like ours.
The old objectives of profitability in industry, to get on or get out, to make and thrive or to fall, can no longer be the yardsticks by which one approaches an industrial society. The Government are striving within their own competence to match industrial efficiency and take into account the social consequences which may ensue in old and ancient areas like the North-West whose capital assets, in many respects, are out of date and have to be replaced.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that one of the obvious symptoms, or failures, is our monitoring of personnel and great concentration of administrative and industrial labour which, in the nationalised sector, is under the immediate control of the Government, and not diversifying more in other areas of the country. This constant concentration into the South-East has been a bad phase in the last 20 years and has done intrinsic harm to areas which I have been privileged to represent for more than 30 years. I have seen the changing pattern during the last 30 to 40 years, and we must now make efforts not only to rehabilitate but to rebuild the area and

fortify its people with the energy, bite and skill which enabled the people there to make such a great contribution in years gone by.
I have only one preoccupation in this debate, apart from the general welfare of the Lancashire-Cheshire border which I am privileged to represent. It is the subject which dominated the speech of the right hon. Member for Newton. I cannot have a better text than that which appeared in a document circulated to all hon. Members by the North-West Industrial Development Association. One sentence in it is sufficient:
Of the redundancies announced which have yet to take effect, the second phase of the British Steel Corporation's move to close the steelworks at Irlam gives most cause for concern. Over 2,300 jobs are at stake, the closure being due to take place sometime in 1973.
This is another serious body blow to the Manchester area. Following the closure of Metropolitan-Vickers, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the complete shutdown of the Irlam Steel Works is one of the worst body blows that we can suffer, but in saying that I cannot support the gloom of the Sunday Times, which referred to it as
The town that waits to die". That is not the way in which the matter should be dealt with.
I had the privilege of being the companion of the right hon. Member for Newton when, following a communication from Lord Melchett, the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, we attended that final meeting in the offices at Irlam to hear the corporation's verdict about its future. Fortunately, it is not to be 1973. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the one plus mark was an extension by another year to 1974.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Two years.

Sir R. Cary: Two years. So we now have to years' grace in which to prepare ourselves to create a new Irlam. On the occasion to which I have referred I was to have been accompanied by my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) but another urgent parliamentary engagement prevented his attending. I was, however, able to bring back to him the decisions which we heard from Mr. Morley and his colleagues, who told us what had been decided.
I was a little comforted in some ways. In the first phase we lost 1,900 to 2,000 jobs. In fairness to the Government it must be said that the pump priming which has gone on in that area the last 12 months has brought about the situation that out of the total of 1,950 men discharged only 280 are now registered as unemployed.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I am not certain that that is the right figure. That is the number at the Irlam employment exchange. The area around also suffered intensely, and it would need a breakdown of the figures at the other employment exchanges to get the correct number.

Sir R. Cary: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I felt assured by the lowness of the figure, even though it was taken off a limited employment exchange register, when Mr. Morley, speaking on behalf of the corporation, said:
Even if we gave you your wish and installed two arc electric furnaces we should provide employment for only about 500 men.
Five hundred men is not the full loaf that we wanted. We hoped that with the installation of two electric arc furnaces we could give employment to 2,000 men. But, in any case, if the employment situation in the area is to improve steadily, I would accept two electric arc furnaces giving employment to 500 men with the happy thought that the surplus labour created, which would be the younger element, could within reason find alternative jobs in the area.
Therefore, I come back to the point that an inquiry would be justified into the Irlam situation. We have two years of time on our side. The problem of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) has been solved in the steel works with which he is concerned because another firm, in Sheffield, has come in and is diverting some of its work. The Irlam problem is concentrated in the township of Irlam, and I beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider the plea made by the right hon. Member for Newton. The only contribution that I make to this debate is that I add my plea in support of his.
I liked the opening sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I have seen a lot of the Lancashire-

Cheshire border in 40 years. I went to that area with David Maxwell Fyfe as a candidate in the early 1930s, in the deep trenches of mass unemployment. There were 3 million unemployed in the country. It was a back-breaking agony which I hope we shall escape. A year ago when it appeared that unemployment was reaching a certain level, when we got to the 1 million mark, the old fears began to assert themselves, but the swift action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government produced a scale of remedies—palliatives, if one likes—particularly in the development areas, in the form of regional grants. This is one remedy to which the Germans are objecting, or about which, at least, they are seeking information. There have been some rather intimidating headlines in the Press. But this is the hinge upon which we hope to do so much to rebuild the Lancashire-Cheshire border. I hope that what is printed in some newspapers represents no more than a scare.
I was privileged some years ago to attend a gathering in the Manchester town hall, when we gave the freedom of that great city to Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. In his speech of acceptance he said that the one thing he regretted most as a citizen of that city was that when he looked out of the windows of the town hall he did not see a garden city spread at his feet but instead broken-down offices and warehouses. The Germans have learned this lesson through their city guilds. All too frequently our cities have been used as areas of extraction. If a new wealth is to be created on the skills of our people, the areas to benefit most should be those in which the money was made and in which the people thrive. We have a civic duty to dedicate ourselves in rebuilding our country, in replacing outworn capital assets and in doing the honourable and straightforward thing, not to some external god of our own imagination but to the great working force which is the hinge on which our industrial might has always dwelt—the ordinary people in the street.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: When I spoke in our last debate on the North-West I managed to speak for a quick three minutes at the end of the debate. I hope to be almost as quick this


time, although I have a somewhat more prestigious position which I do not like to waste. However, I shall be brief.
I want to talk about the problems of North-East Lancashire. I want to stress the words "North-East Lancashire" so that the Minister does not fall into the trap into which so many people who are not over-familiar with the area fall, in thinking that the problems of the North-West and of Lancashire mean the problems of Greater Liverpool and Greater Manchester. They do not by any means. It is true that in North-East Lancashire we suffer from many of the same problems. The only difference is that we have them to a greater degree than the other part of the North-West and the other parts of Lancashire. We suffer from the same problems of dereliction, only more so. We suffer particularly from the same annoying problem of the drift-away of young people, only to a far greater degree.
The greatest indictment that I can make against the Government is this. Over the last two years, for month after month, the Government have succeeded in producing in an area of traditionally low unemployment, in North-East Lancashire, the highest unemployment figures since the war. In my area the largest factory has been on short time for the last few months. The Minister will know—it is mentioned in the document which has been referred to earlier—that only last month one of the largest employers of labour, J. and T. Rothwell, has closed down with a resultant loss of 300 workers, many of whom will leave the area and will seek work elsewhere.
I know what Ministers will say. They will say that it is all due to greedy workers and bad labour relations. I find it particularly offensive that people who are doing all right and have always done all right should refer to workers as greedy and grabbing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned, quite rightly, that the wage rates in the North-West are on average lower than those in most other parts of the country. That is true, but in North-East Lancashire they are even lower than in other parts of Lancashire and other parts of the North-West. As my hon. Friends will know, labour relations in North-East Lancashire have always been traditionally good. Yet in an area of excellent labour relations and of low wages, one of the

largest factories has had to close down in the last few months.
It is all very well for the Minister, as he is entitled to do, to come out with optimistic statements about the statistics of unfilled vacancies and that sort of thing. Optimistic statistics cannot disguise what people feel and what they are suffering, and anyone who has lived in North-East Lancashire in recent months knows that throughout the area there is a deep sense of insecurity about jobs. People can feel and smell unemployment in the air because it is there, and it is lingering.
A particular problem arising out of the aftermath of the closure of J. and T. Rothwell concerns apprentices. I do not expect an answer from him tonight, but I must put this matter to the Minister. Forty apprentices will shortly lose their jobs as a result of the closure. The majority of them have not managed to find alternative employment—this applies especially to platers and welders—and the prospect for them is gloomy. In the upper age group, there is a particular problem because, unless these boys can complete their apprenticeship in their chosen trade, they will lose their designation as skilled craftsmen and will have to take dead-end jobs, jobs without any future, jobs fit only for unqualified people.
There is also the question of their technical training. It has been put to me by the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—I put it to the Minister for his consideration—that the Engineering Industry Training Board and the Department of Employment should jointly sponsor these apprentices for at least the next 12 months so that, until such time as they can obtain other jobs, their technical training may continue without a break. This is especially important for those already half-way through their modular training. I hope that the Minister will convey that suggestion to his right hon. Friend at the Department of Employment as a constructive and sensible proposal to help these boys out of a serious difficulty.
The plea has been made, not only by the North-East Lancashire Development Committee, that North-East Lancashire should be given full development area status. I do not quarrel with the Government's decision to grant intermediate area status to other parts of Lancashire. That


would be churlish, and it would be out of keeping with the feeling of people in North-East Lancashire. But I remind the House that North-East Lancashire was given intermediate area status by the Labour Government originally because it suffered from some special problems—I do not wish to go into them now—and it needed special incentives, particularly for new industries to develop.
Now that the rest of Lancashire has been upgraded—I see the Under-Secretary of State smiling, and I know what is in his mind: he thinks that I am always asking for more—the differential has gone, and the inducements and incentives for industries to open up in North-East Lancashire have now, as it were, disappeared because the same incentives are there throughout the rest of the county. This is a genuine plea made with great force by the North-East Lancashire Development Committee, and I ask the Minister to take it seriously.
Now, the question of intermediate area status for the new town. Statements were repeatedly made from the Government Front Bench that the mid-Lancashire new town was not to be given intermediate area status until the problems of North-East Lancashire had been solved. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) raised this point with great force in an Adjournment debate. Why are we now told that the new town is to be given intermediate area status? Plainly, this will be unnecessarily damaging to North-East Lancashire, and I ask that the decision be revoked.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I suppose that in politics one should never be satisfied but—I speak with studied moderation—I think that the Opposition's Motion is, to put it mildly, somewhat ungenerous. It is interesting to compare the tone of the Motion with the reaction in Lancashire to the Government's recent policy decisions. It is of particular interest, for example, to compare the rather churlish, bad-tempered and ungenerous tone of the Motion with the letter written by the chairman of the North-West Industrial Development Association to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after the new Government measures were announced at the end of April.
Alderman Tweedale wrote to the Prime Minister in these terms:
There can be no doubt that the proposed changes in policy go to a considerable way towards meeting the recommendations put for-fard by the Association over a number of years to successive Governments. In particular, we are very pleased that assisted area status has now rightly and fairly been granted to all parts of the North-West and that industrial development will in future be actively fostered by the Govrnment throughout the Region.
He went on to say, again as spokesman for the North-West Industrial Development Association:
We also welcome the measures introduced to help tackle the problem of industrial obsolescence in our old industrial towns" and he concluded:
I hope you will make a further visit to the North-West in the near future, when the Association will be delighted to entertain you and to have an opportunity of thanking you face to face for the action your Government have taken to help the North-West.
I waited with interest to see the terms of the Motion. One is always glad to have a debate on the problems of the North-West—for one thing, it seems to be one of the few occasions when I can manage to make a speech at a reasonable hour, perhaps because there are not quite so many hon. Members anxious to get to their feet—but I was surprised and somewhat dismayed to read the wording which the Opposition had put down.
North-East Lancashire is not specifically mentioned in the Motion—I make no criticism of the Opposition for that—but I wish to say a few words about that area, the one which I know best and an area which has been recognised as one facing particular problems over the past few years.
Certain people in North-East Lancashire have expressed concern at the fact that, as a result of the whole of Lancashire having either intermediate area or development area status, North-East Lancashire has lost the special advantage which it has had over the rest of Lancashire, apart from Merseyside, since 1969. In my view, however, we in North-East Lancashire have little reason to complain about this relatively small margin of advantage being taken from us.
One should cast one's mind back over recent history to the setting up of the Hunt Committee and the time when it reported to the then Government. First, what the Government have done is what


the North-East Lancashire Development Committee was itself calling for immediately after publication of the Hunt Report in 1969. Second, the North-East Lancashire towns are themselves members of the North-West Industrial Development Association and, as I have said, that association has expressed itself as delighted at the recent policy decision announced by the Government, especially the decision to make the whole of Lancashire outside Merseyside an intermediate area.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The development council was very worried about the Hunt Report because it talked about de-scheduling Merseyside.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, but what the North-West Industrial Development Association called for at that time was what it has now got. The Hunt Committee said that, in order to provide the funds for making the whole of Lancashire an intermediate area, Merseyside should be descheduled. The North-West Industrial Development Association has now got what it probably thought that it would never get, that is, both its cake and its ha'penny.
Thirdly, one has to remember that no one, no one living in North-East Lancashire and no Member of Parliament for North-East Lancashire, can say with his hand on his heart that the towns of South Lancashire do not suffer far worse problems of dereliction than we do in the North-East. No one from North-East Lancashire can seriously say with his hand on his heart that other towns, in South-East Lancashire particularly, do not have very much worse housing conditions than we suffer in the towns of North-East Lancashire.
Of course it is not surprising that there is still great concern in North-East Lancashire about the impact that the new town is likely to have on the industrial future of North-East Lancashire, but many of the steps proposed in the impact report have already been taken. In particular, the Calder Valley road is no longer a dream and it should be completed by 1977, three years before the consultants said that the full impact of the new town would be felt in the area. Secondly, the consultants stressed the need for comprehensive renewal and rehabilitation of the urban fabric and that

is going on apace in North-East Lancashire.
I cross swords with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in believing that the Government have reason to resent the suggestion that is made from time to time that they are in breach of faith because the new town area is now in the intermediate area which, as I have said, covers the whole of Lancashire, apart from the Merseyside development area. If the Hunt Committee's recommendations were to be implemented, it is impossible to see how Preston, Chorley and Leyland alone of all the towns in Lancashire could be set apart from the rest of the Lancashire intermediate area, and even more difficult to see how, if they had been artifically separated from the whole of the rest of Lancashire, that would have been of any benefit at all to towns like Burnley, Nelson and Colne.
Presumably, the only result of the exclusion of the new town area from the Lancashire intermediate area would have been intensive industrial development a few yards over the artificial boundary but still as close as possible to the M6, which would have been the obvious place to put new industry. There would have been no difficulty about putting new industry there because of the unfortunate decision taken by the last Government to include the country area between Blackburn and Preston in the intermediate area, a decision which in turn led to what I still regard as the foolish planning decision of the present Government at the beginning of their term of office allowing Whit-bread's to build its new brewery in the open countryside.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Accepting the view that it was not possible to exclude the new town from intermediate status, could not the whole concept of the new town have been abandoned? Very few people in the area wanted it and the decision to have it was taken against the near-unanimous advice of Conservative Members from the area. We did not want it.

Mr. Waddington: I am certainly not prepared to argue that with my hon. Friend because I agree with him. If I had thought that it was feasible after the Government got back to power to scrap the whole concept of the new town, I should have urged the Government to do


just that. But it is an unfortunate fact of life that over the years planning decisions had been taken on the basis that the new town would come into existence in that part of Lancashire, and planning decisions had been made which after the summer of 1970 it would have been impossible to reverse. As my hon. Friend well appreciates, there was the additional difficulty that the Government had made it perfectly plain that all pleas from Lancashire for more public investment in the county would fall on deaf ears if we turned down the obvious prospect of more public investment in Lancashire resulting from the setting up of the new town.
But that is not the case that I am arguing now. The case I am arguing now is that to talk about the exclusion of the new town area from the intermediate area, which covers the whole of the rest of Lancashire, apart from Merseyside, is a nonsense and it would not do any good if by some strange device the area were to be excluded from the intermediate area.
What of the situation in North-East Lancashire? One thing is absolutely plain: North-East Lancashire has benefitted and is benefiting enormously from the policies pursued over the last two years. For instance, the 75 per cent. house improvement grants are already beginning to have effect on the appearance of our towns. I can go through Nelson and see on the ground the result of those policies. My only regret is that there is no way under the Act by which the Government could give one or two authorities in North-East Lancashire which are still not making anything like full use of the Act a hearty kick in the backside.
Secondly, the dereliction grants are being used to good effect; Operation Eyesore has created an immediate impression. One can go through the towns of North-East Lancashire and see dowdy old buildings suddenly sparkling and clean again with all their stonework showing up to the best advantage.
Thirdly, there are the industrial incentives which have been available since 1969 and which have helped to bring new industry to the area. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) is perfectly entitled to plead the special problems of Accrington, and I know that Accrington has been faced with special

problems as the result of one closure; all of us have found in our constituencies that the whole atmosphere can change as the result of one closure. But employment statistics can be distorted as a result of one closure. We must face the fact that unemployment figures in North-East Lancashire as a whole are much better than those for the region as a whole. We must not overstate our case.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Nor must the hon. and learned Gentleman mis-state my case. He implies that the problems of Accrington stem from one factory closure, but that is not so. As he knows, there have been several factory closures in Accrington, redundancies and a great deal of short time.

Mr. Waddington: One must be careful not to over-state the case, and I could not agree with the extraordinary demand by the North-East Lancashire Development Committee that the Government should make North-East Lancashire a development area. The unemployment rate in North-East Lancashire is lower than that in the North-West area as a whole. One does no good to one's case and no good to North-East Lancashire if one goes around crying "Doom" and saying that the problems are much worse than they are. My personal view is that what we should be doing is not crying "Doom" but going out and selling ourselves.
or instance, we should be pointing out that ours is a fine part of the country in which to live, that one can be in the centre of a town and yet within only a few hundred yards of beautiful countryside. We should be pointing out that land prices and house prices are still relatively low compared with other parts of the country. We should be pointing out that we have excellent schools and colleges of further education, hospitals and recreational facilities. Above all, we should be pointing out that we have a work force that is second to none, that has an excellent record of industrial relations and is willing to adapt itself to the sort of industrial change with which we have had to cope in North-East Lancashire in the last 20 to 30 years.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. and learned Member has spoken of unemployment among people in North-East Lancashire and in


the North-West as a whole. There is a far more sombre aspect. The incidence of unemployment among severely disabled people seeking work is 16·3 per cent. in the North-West of England, which is much higher than for the country as a whole.
I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my interest in seeking to make life better for disabled people. Would he not agree that in this debate the position of disabled people in the North-West should be strongly urged?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman has now been able to make that valid comment. I can assure him that it was not left out of my speech and it would not be left out of the speech of any Member because it was considered of little importance but simply because of the pressures of time. I entirely agree that all of us should explore the possibilities of getting more and more disabled people placed in industry.
Of course, there is more that the Government can do. I support the call for Government encouragement of office development in the assisted areas, the call for higher dereliction grants, the call for more public investment in the county as a whole, the call made by the North-East Lanacashire Development Committee for the provision of more advance factories in North-East Lancashire and the call for selective assistance for specific industries under the new legislation. But at the end of the day our prosperity is bound up very closely with the prosperity of the country as a whole, and the Government's policy of reduced taxation and economic expansion gives us in the North-West vast opportunities which we should now grasp with both hands.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: I wish to concentrate on the textile industry, but first I should like to say something about the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) about the letter from Councillor Arnold Tweedale, chairman of the NorthWest Industrial Development Association. It is true that Councillor Tweedale wrote to the Prime Minister to thank him for what had been

done but it would have been churlish for him to do anything other, because the Association had been pressing for a long time for those things to be done. It recognises that what has been done will be of value to the area, although it has been quite a long time in coming about. Therefore, we must not quote the letter as an indication that all is well in the North-West and that everyone is satisfied. The Association realises that there is a considerable amount still to be done, and I am sure that it will continue to press for further assistance.
There are hon. Members present who know a great deal about the textile industry, and it is not necessary for me to go into detail about the background of the industry's troubles. In 50 years the numbers employed in the industry in the North-West has been run down from about 750,000 workers to under 100,000, a rundown unmatched by any other industry in the country, including the railways and coal mining, although it has gone virtually unnoticed by the general public. The trade union movement in the industry has been unusually helpful towards the employers, co-operating in every possible way, as the employers themselves will confirm. We should not be surprised if other trade unionists draw the lesson that the more co-operative they are, the less attention will be paid to their troubles and the more likely they are to lose their jobs. I do not necessarily support that point of view but it is not illogical for other trade unions to draw that lesson from the textile industry.
We can understand the depth of feeling about the problems of the industry when we receive letters from bodies like the Oldham and District Chamber of Trade, which tells me:
A decline in the cotton industry would still have a very serious effect on your constituents even though industry is now much more diversified than it was in the 1930s.
That is true. The textile industry employs fewer than 10 per cent. of the people in the North-West, but it is still one of the biggest employers there and still plays a very important part in the area's economy.
Hon. Members have also received a brief from the National Union of Textile


and Allied Workers, which is very concerned
that there is as yet no declared policy by the Government on the terms and conditions for the textile industry following entry into the EEC.
It mentions its difficulties in trying to understand how countries in the EEC manage to keep their imports of cotton yarn down to 5·5 per cent. though there are no quota restrictions, yet United Kingdom imports are 7·8 per cent. though we have a quota arrangement.
The employers and trade unions have come together to form something which I believe is unique, a support campaign for their industry. They have been lobbying us pretty heavily, because they have very difficult problems and they have a simple four-point plan with which they want the Government to assist the industry. They want the retention of an import quota system. They appreciate the Government's hasty action towards the end of last year, when under heavy pressure from the Textile Industry Support Campaign and hon. Members the Government took action which gave the industry a breathing space, but it was only a breathing space. The danger still exists. Import penetration is still very great, amounting to over 55 per cent. The United States Government acted very quickly to protect their textile industry when import penetration there reached about 15 per cent. as compared with our 55 per cent. The import penetration here is much greater than in any of the EEC countries.
The industry also wants restoration of the marking of country of origin. That is a very simple point. The industry is not asking for vast sums of money, such as were given to Rolls-Royce or Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. It is asking for positive support from the Government rather than indifference or even positively harmful policies. What is wroug with the housewives being as informed as it is possible to make them about the country of origin of the garments they are buying? Every housewife with whom I have discussed the problem has told me that she places importance on knowing whether a garment is made in this country or abroad. The Government gave support to a Private Member's Bill, which has now gone through the House, pre-

venting the false marking of goods, but that deals only with the tip of the iceberg, a very small part of the problem. Many consumer organisations and the industry regard that Bill as inadequate.
The Government told me when I presented a Bill on the marking of country of origin that I was trying to protect manufacturers and not the housewife. But I believe that people attach great importance to the country of origin. I shall believe the Government's case that country of origin is not important and has no selling value when Swiss watch manufacturers for example, cease to mark their watches "Swiss-made". On this matter the Government could do something to assist the industry. The industry also asks for more purchasing by Government Departments of their textile requirements from the home industry. That is not an unreasonable request when we think of the dire straits the industry is in.
Most important, the industry wants really effective action against the practice of dumping. Dumping can take many forms. There is a technical, legal definition. I do not believe that the Department of Trade and Industry does all it could to investigate the allegations made by people within the industry, who should know about what is going on in other countries. A constituent of mine, Mr. Arthur Johnson, managing director of a spinning firm in Oldham, told the Department time after time that the Pakistan Government were operating a credit-voucher scheme. This was detrimental to our textile industry. He explained that fully to the Department and it took no notice.
Mr. Johnson had to go, at his own expense, to Pakistan to obtain the evidence, which he then used to demonstrate to the Department that this was a form of Pakistan Government subsidy to their textile industry. The vouchers were being freely quoted on the Pakistan Stock Exchange; there was no secret about it. Finally the point was accepted and that practice has now ceased. Surely it is not asking too much to expect a Government Department to do that sort of job on behalf of this important industry.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that successive Governments have intentionally sacrificed the textile industry of this coun-


try as a trading pawn for perhaps the Commonwealth and developing countries?

Mr. Lamond: That is a very wide subject which I would not like to enter now. I certainly accept some of the point of that intervention. The other day the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in reply to a question that he heard lots of rumours about how EEC countries managed to prevent cotton yarn from entering their countries but he could not get any direct evidence about it on which he could act. While I appreciate his difficulties I think he should investigate this more fully. I have obtained information which I have been asked not to use too liberally in the House but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has been given examples too.
Most of the EEC countries have licensing systems for cotton yarn and there is no doubt that some use them as methods of unofficial quota control. Italy, for instance, had a very low level of yarn imports and reduced that figure from 16,000 tons in 1970 to 7,000 tons in 1971. It used price supervision schemes. In some parts of the EEC there are price supervision schemes under which cotton yarn is not admitted if the price falls below a specified discount on locally produced yarn, as established by a committee of experts. Similar schemes operate in Belgium and Holland. There are bonus schemes, too, and in some cases yarn is delayed at Customs.
All these things are used but our civil servants play the game too well. They have all been taught to play cricket; they do not like to break the rules and I would not like to ask them to do so. I am entitled to ask that some attempt should be made to understand what is happening to the textile industry, what will happen when we enter the EEC and that there should be adequate protection for the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I still have the names of about 15 or 16 hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. If hon. Members can keep to about 10 minutes each, very strictly, I shall be able to call everyone.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for

Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond). There was much in what he said with which I would not quarrel, particularly about marks of origin on which there is substantial feeling.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) quite rightly drew attention to the ungenerous wording of the Opposition Motion, since no Government have done more to provide a framework for the future prosperity of the North-West than the present Government. I am glad that hon. Gentleman opposite have not been tempted to suggest that the North-West is in any way in a process of decline or decay.
There is general agreement on both sides that our problems are those of change. The North-West has been the traditional heartland of the Industrial Revolution in this country and this has left us with many grievous problems, old factories, out-of-date buildings, derelict land and above all industries that are no longer viable in their existing form. This is particularly the case with the industry principally represented by the hon. Member for Oldham, East, the cotton industry.
It is true, too, of coal and, nearer to my constituency, it is true of steel today with the threatened closure of the Irlam steelworks. Over the years while these industries have been changing and declining the North-West has suffered from one of the lowest rates of economic investment in the country. This has led to a massive outflow of the population to the Midlands, to London and the South-East and emigration to South Africa and Australia. Above all it has been the younger people who have moved, and this is something which there is a deep determination to see reversed among all North-West Members.
We cannot afford to see the lifeblood going elsewhere. We want to see new industry, new lifeblood coming in. When the present Government came to office two years ago, many of the traditional centres of industry in the North West were undergoing a major process of decline, with no assistance available. It was the case with the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham, East, it was the case in my own constituency of Stretford, where the largest industrial complex


in the country, Trafford Park, had been undergoing severe change. We suffered 8,000 redundancies in Metropolitan-Vickers, or GEC/AEI as it is now called, over a period of four to five years up to 1970.
The problem that faced us was not only the general decline of the traditional industries but the fact that the assistance available in the North West was selective. That meant that many of the traditional centres such as Stretford, Gorton and Oldham, all old-established industrial centres, were finding themselves unable to expand, unable to get any new investment because of the policies being pursued by the then Government, which provided colossal bribes of taxpayers' money to anyone who would go to a green field site or development area to establish new industry. There was severe discrimination against anyone who wanted to do this in a place such as Stretford or Trafford Park.
It reached a point of total rigidity in the issuing of industrial development certificates. Not only were we having to complete with areas where there were grants of 40 per cent. available to new the industries but at the same time there was a physical prohibition by the central Government on any expansion, either by new firms coming in or, even less reasonably, of existing firms expanding. To give but one example, there was a case of which I learned the other day of a multinational company in my constituency wishing to expand just at the time when these 8,000 redundancies were taking place at Metro-Vickers. The firm was told firmly that the answer was" No expansion in Stretford" but that it would be welcome to expand in a place called Huyton. It now has a production facility there employing 200 to 300 people.
The then Prime Minister had some pangs of conscience about this just before the General Election, because when, two days before polling day he came to wind up his election campaign at the gates of Metro-Vickers he forswore the whole policy that his Administration had pursued for so long and promised the free issue of industrial development certificates in Stretford and Trafford Park.
The Government have gone a long way towards implementing, and indeed, as my

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said, have in places exceeded, the Hunt Report. This has changed the future prosperity and prospects of a place like Trafford Park and many of the other industrial areas of Lancashire. Now we have assisted area status. Grants are available for factory building and new plant. There is free depreciation on plant and equipment. Coupled with all that, there is a far less rigid industrial development certificate policy. The Budget also brought a firm commitment to the course of industrial expansion, which is perhaps more important to the North-West than any other single feature because there is no use having individual regional policies and tinkering about with the framework of industrial grants without a vigorously expanding economy. Certainly no Government have done more to ensure the future prosperity of Trafford Park than the present Government, and I am most grateful to the Ministers concerned for accepting the recommendations of those of us in the North-West.
The success of the Government's policy is already beginning to show. In Trafford Park several tens of thousands of square feet of industrial floor space have been taken up in the last five or six months. This is a most encouraging sign. But I must warn right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side that their call for a policy of controls on multi-national companies would, should they ever be re-elected, be most damaging to Trafford Park. As the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who has such close knowledge of it knows, Trafford Park is based largely on multinational industry. One of the principal factors in the founding of Trafford Park was that the great American and Canadian companies could see it as the gateway not only to the British market but to the European market. I cannot think of a better place for an American multi-national company to put its money if it wants to penetrate the EEC market than a place where the skills of labour are available, as they are in the greater Manchester area, and where they have not only open access across the Atlantic but increasingly improved access across the Pennines to the EEC. It is a very safe place for them to make their investment.
The general picture is of substantial improvement compared with what it was only a few months ago. As the North West Industrial Development Association has made clear, the atmosphere is increasingly one of confidence. The number of vacancies has increased, unemployment is down and there is rising economic activity. This is pointing in the right direction. But there is a serious problem which affects many of us in the area, and it has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Newton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), namely, the future of the Irlam steelworks and, above all, the future of the 4,500 men there who face redundancy.
We have reached what could almost be called a breakthrough in our policy when it comes to closing profitable industry. Following the phase 1 closure, even on basic steelmaking, Irlam is today making a profit in excess of £1 million a year. If the profit on the rod and bar mill is added, the figure is nearer £3 million. But comfort is to be drawn from the fact that, of the 1,950 people made redundant last year under phase 1, 1,280 only were left unemployed by the time that it was enforced in December last year, and1,000 of those 1,280 have found jobs. Only 280 remain on the unemployment register. The 280 includes not only those on the Irlam register but all those who were made redundant under phase 1. This was confirmed to me by the local authority last Friday. This is a remarkable fact, set against the background of high unemployment which we have had in recent months.
Nevertheless, we desperately need the electric arc furnaces which, as Lord Melchett made clear, could save up to 500 local jobs. This matter is of the greatest importance to those in adjacent constituencies such as mine. But it is not just a question of finding jobs for people; it is a question finding a future life for the township of Irlam. It is possible that jobs can be found over a wide area in the North-West or elsewhere in the country in the coming months. But that will not help Irlam's problem if the town is allowed to die. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will exercise the powers contained in the Industry Bill, when it comes into force, to do all he can

to assist the township of Irlam, whose situation is grave. All local Members, irrespective of party, feel strongly about this matter.
On the general front, anything which can be done to steer offices to the North-West will be of great assistance. Why should we not have a major EEC office development at, for instance, Ringway? That would provide far speedier communications with Brussels than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I agree with those Members who have spoken up for the North-West rather than denigrated it. We have a great deal to offer and we can, as a result of the Budget, look to the future with new confidence. The neglect of years is at last being tackled. Industry is being modernised so that it can compete in the EEC and outside it. The scars of the Industrial Revolution are finally being cleared. Meanwhile, the skills of the people of Lancashire remain, and this more than anything else will assure a new prosperity for our region.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The problems and economic well-being of the North-West merited more than they were given by the Minister in his wholly regrettable speech, which was needlessly provocative, blatantly political and devoid of any real concern for the future of the North-West.
The Minister said that the Motion was alarmist. As the North West Industrial Development Association records that between January and May, 1972, with the exception of the South-East, the North-West had the highest number of redundancies recorded of any region—15,800—and that when measured as a percentage of the working population the North-West's record is by far the worst, I believe that we should be concerned and alarmed.
In my constituency redundancy is not so much a word as a way of life. As each month succeeds the last, a new factory is closed and new redundancies are announced. Councillor Gilmor, a distinguished member of the Manchester City Council, remarked that one of Openshaw's concerns over so many years has been industrial atmospheric pollution but that in recent months, because of industrial closures and redundancies, it is


well on the way to becoming a clean air zone. That is an indication of the extent of redundancies in my constituency.
Many of the famous firms which contributed so much to Britain's industrial life are now no more. Beyer and Peacock, which made locomotives for Britain and the world and existed for 112 years, is now a thing of the past. Within recent months the British Steel Corporation has closed its steel-making plant and 600 jobs went overnight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) referred to Section 15 of the Act, recording the fact that at a time when the British Steel Corporation is creating redundancies and closing steel-making plants the Department of Trade and Industry is giving authority for the establishment of mini-steel works in Sheerness owned by private enterprise. It seems completely illogical. Cook and Ferguson, another firm in my constituency, closed and created 800 redundancies. Textile mills in Failsworth closed as did the Bradford Colliery where 1,700 jobs were lost. The whole catalogue is one of contraction.
We have heard the explanation about the processes of rationalisation and industrial change, but it is more than that to the families concerned: it is a human problem. They are seeing old-established industries contracting and no new jobs taking their place.
The greater Manchester area and the North-West are not standing with the begging bowl. We are not seeking charity. All we seek is the right to work. The people of that area find themselves in a situation where their jobs are no longer available. I know it is for private investment decisions, for nationalised industries and for Government Departments to decide where investment and jobs are to be placed, but it is about time the Government took more positive action to make sure that more jobs come to the North-West.
If the Minister of State thinks that we are being unduly alarmist, let me tell him that my constituents are alarmed. It is no use telling them that 15,800 redundancies between January and May is something not to be alarmed about. If one is out of work and cannot find a job, there is cause for alarm. Let us have no more of the argument that the situation is not alarming.
I am concerned about the closure of textile mills in my constituency, the closure of the steel works in Openshaw, and redundancies affecting light engineering and heavy industry. I am equally concerned about the young people. The Minister made his political points about the booming North-West, and I hope that he is right. If that is his vision, I am with him because that is what I want to see. However, I want to see more evidence of the boom that now exists.
Many young people in Manchester face problems in seeking employment. On 12th June, 1972, 494 boys and 211 girls were unemployed and registered with the Manchester careers service. On 12th June, 1970, 194 boys and 72 girls were unemployed. Therefore, there has been almost a threefold increase in lack of job opportunities for young people in the Manchester area. It might be said that they will soon get jobs. If we take the Minister's view, there is no cause for alarm. However, 341 of the young people unemployed in June, 1972, have been unable to get a job for four weeks or more—that is 48 per cent. of the total—131 had still not been able to get a job after 12 weeks or more, and 60 were still unemployed after 20 weeks or more. Yet the Minister tells this House that we have no cause to be alarmed, anxious or concerned about the situation in Manchester and the North-West.
In supporting the Motion, the House will be indicating the real measure of concern and anxiety which it feels about this human problem.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: Notwithstanding the divisive and emotive remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), which undersold the North-West to the limit, a policy which no other hon. Member has adopted today and I hope will not do so in the three hours which remain ahead of us, when I read the Motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), I was reminded of a fable which can be found in St. Matthew, chapter 7 verse 5, which states:
'"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
That is most apposite to the way in which the Motion is phrased.
Hon. Members on the Opposition side have cited the contraction of the steel and textile industries. Let us remember that the steel industry was renationalised by the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Huyton and the fundamental word throughout those debates was "rationalisation". The Labour Government were going to rationalise the steel industry. I can find in the record no mention of any member of the Labour Government saying "But what are we going to do with the people who will be thrown out of work as a result of rationalisation?"
The same applies to a large extent to the textile industry. It was known for years that it was to cut back but unfortunately, for economic reasons beyond this country's control, it has cut back somewhat faster than was expected. But the Government are to blame in the eyes of some hon. Members opposite.
Hon. Members opposite have also talked about unemployment. It can come from a number of things, one of which is that the country has not generated growth at a sufficiently high rate to absorb increased efficiency and those coming on to the labour market. Again, that is the responsibility of the Labour Government. In the North-West, on the contrary, the present Government have increased private investment on a per capita basis second only to the South-East. We would all like to see more, but that is a step forward. In addition the effects of the Industry Bill are still to be felt, and we shall soon see them at work throughout the North-West.
In Rossendale unemployment is down to 3 per cent. Such is the industrial development coming to the area that I would make a small side bet that in 12 months we will be short of local labour. That is what can be done if local authorities work in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry to get results. They are not short-selling their towns or constituencies. They are getting on with the job, which is exactly what we must do here.
Many hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends have quoted from the brief which was kindly supplied by the North West Industrial Development Association. Of course hon. Members

want to get as much as they can out of the Government. Who does not when the time is ripe and the opportunity justifies?
In conclusion, however, I want to read something which has not been quoted. It comes from News Letter No. 43, issued by the director of the association. He says:
Broadly speaking however, the industrial development policies now being applied in the North-West are much more appropriate to our problems and needs than they have been in the past. The Prime Minister has replied to my letter saying that he is glad to learn of the welcome given by the Association to the Government's proposals. And he stresses that what is needed now is a sustained effort by all concerned to take advantage of the opportunities these proposals offer to modernise British industry.
He is absolutely right and it is important that we go all out to take advantage of the new measures of aid. There is an urgent need to publicise the tremendous advantage that this Region can offer to industry and commerce from other parts of the U.K. and from overseas. The North West has the advantage of a large labour force and a long tradition of skill in industrial and commercial activity.
He goes on to say:
There is the added advantage in relation to areas to the South, of low cost land for all purposes and low cost factory space, office accommodation and housing. Moreover there is the advantage of good quality labour and good labour relations in most parts of the Region.
The Government have moved an Amendment to the Opposition's mischievous Motion. The Motion is mischievous because it tends to undermine the confidence of the country in the North-West which it is the privilege of hon. Members opposite to represent with their best endeavours. I am sure that hon. Members opposite, when they refer to the detail of what is being injected into the North-West by way of capital, will be fully appreciative of the work being done on their behalf.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How can my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) be accused of under-selling the North-West because he has told the truth about the anxieties of young people in the area and of men and women who are redundant? The hon. Gentleman has made an utterly unmerited attack on my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bray: If one wishes to run down an area, one speaks in the terms used by the hon. Member for Openshaw. One does not cry "Woe is for all time". We have


reduced the number of unemployed over a period and over the next six or seven months we shall see prospects for the future. One does not scare employers away by crying "wolf", which is exactly what the hon. Member for Openshaw did.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Frank Marsden: The tale of woe has gone on for a long time. The problems of the North-West, or Merseyside and of cities like Liverpool are deep-seated and very long term. Throughout my lifetime there has been the problems of slow economic growth, derelict land, outward migration, bad housing, low level amenity and, above all, unemployment. The figures of unemployment on Merseyside vary over the years, but nevertheless they are much the same today as they were 70 or 80 years ago, and they are still amongst the highest in the country. Indeed, they are as high as they were 100 years ago. We still see a low level of business confidence, and industrial investment is negligible.
If a national company wishes to rationalise its activities, one can be sure that a factory on Merseyside will be the first to close or the first at which redundancies occur. It is only right to mention the level of unemployment. At present, in the Liverpool travel-to-work area there are 49,687 unemployed—8·2 per cent. of the working population. My hon. Friends have mentioned the tragedy of boys and girls leaving school without being able to find jobs—and it is a great tragedy, especially in my city of Liverpool.
The population of the North-West has been in decline for some years. People say that this is due to new towns being built, to compulsory purchase order areas, and to movement of population, and so on. But one factor is overlooked—that younger people have a different outlook from their elders. Older people were apt to cling to the area come rain or shine—and mostly it has been rain. They had great love and affection for Merseyside, which sustained them when the majority of them could not see over the sod and felt like second-class citizens. But many young people have got out, which is a bad thing for Liverpool, Merseyside and the North-West as a whole.
There were 29 ship-repairing firms from Liverpool to the Manchester basin 15 years ago; today, there are only three, and two of them are in financial difficulties. Cammell Laird, the Merseyside shipbuilders, recently received £3 million in assistance from the Government, yet in the United Kingdom 35 vessels, totalling 495,000 gross tons, were laid up at the end of May. That is the highest figure since July, 1963. Is it any wonder that Merseyside dockers, shipbuilders and ship repair workers see nationalisation as their only chance of job security?
We have our share of layabouts on Merseyside, but the majority of our people are decent and hard-working, giving value for money. They do not like to be unemployed for long periods. In June there was a drop in the unemployment figures in the country as a whole but again the North-West Region got little relief. I know the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) well and I say to him with great sincerity that the future is bleak on Merseyside. It always has been bleak. The National Institute for Economic Research expects the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom to be 800,000 in the first quarter of 1973.

Mr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman says that the future of Liverpool has always been bleak. If that is so, can be tell us why Liverpool became such a centre of commerce and industry some years ago?

Mr. Marsden: We have always been what was considered a centre of commerce and industry. That was our mistake. We put all our eggs into the one basket of the dockside and shipping. That was terribly wrong, because when world trade was at its lowest the whole city suffered. I am glad to say that in the last 25 years or so we have broken away from the dockside, and have encouraged more industries to come to us. I wish I could give the answer to this serious regional problem, but it is our responsibility to continue to fight back. That has been done and is being done. We have to make the North-West prosperous and a good place to work in. Assisted area status must remain for many years.
I appeal to the Government actively to encourage industrial development. Cammell Laird has not had a naval contract for many years, and many shipping


firms send their vessels abroad for repair. That is not how it is done in the United States of America. There, every shipping company is forced by law to have its repairs done in American ports. If a vessel calls in for repair at a foreign port, the American authorities want to know why, and if the repair is not an emergency repair the shipping company is fined very heavily. That is something that we could think about here.
British Petroleum at one time had all its repair work and refitting done at Cammell Laird, but all that is done now are emergency jobs. When such a job comes in the men are told, "Do a good job on this, lads, and if you do all right you will get a good wage", but somehow it never happens. These tankers go to Holland to be repaired—

Mr. Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Member can explain why it is that these tankers and other vessels go to foreign ports for repair. Perhaps he can tell us the reasons for this, because I am sure he knows them.

Mr. Marsden: A delegation came down here from the ship repair section of Cammell Laird, and those men impressed me. They did not come arrogantly, they did not rant and rave. They fought for their company. They spoke highly of the directors. They fully realised that their future was bound up with ship repairing and with their company. I ask them specifically "Why do these ships go to Holland?" They could not tell me. They said "We do not know. We give a very good service. We have an excellent yard. Our repair work is the finest of the world." They mentioned a ship they had repaired a little time ago which left the Merseyside three weeks before the scheduled date.
I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question but I hope that the Minister does, because what I speak of is what is going on in the North-West, and it is about time we put the North-West's house in order.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Marsden). I, too, with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), saw those ship repairers from

Camell Laird last week. Their argument has point, because one of the great difficulties in the Merseyside ship repairing industry is that the Fleet auxiliaries may come in once every four months and there is then nothing at all for the next four months. If the Secretary of State for Defence could even out the maintenance of some of those Fleet auxiliaries, it would be very beneficial.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of ship owners not sending their ships to Merseyside for repair but sending them to Holland. Oddlyenough, wages over there are now much higher, but we must also remember that Holland has a reputation for fewer strikes than we have had. I accept the fact that redundancy and strikes interact, and this is what has been the curse of Merseyside for far too long. I do not blame only the builders or the dockers; I blame management also. Only this evening the first two items on the BBC 6 o'clock news were about strikes on Merseyside.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman speaks of strikes in the ship repairing industry, but is he aware that the firm of Harland and Wolff, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), has had only one strike since 1948; yet that firm has closed down and moved completely from Merseyside. Again, Camell Laird's strike record is probably the best in the country.

Mr. Tilney: I shall have something to say later about firms moving from Merseyside, but I do not think that I referred to strikes in the shipbuilding industry. I referred to strikes on Merseyside, and the difficulty is that the effect of strikes in one industry impinges upon the prosperity of other industries.
Here I must say how much I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the late Mr. McCann, who was my leader on one parliamentary delegation to West Africa and a very much loved man.
I must also say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green), the Chairman of the North-West Parliamentary Group, cannot speak today because he has lost his voice. But he would agree, I know, that


all parts of the North-West are not depressed. Some areas are very prosperous, as one would expect when one realises that there are more people in Lancashire than in the whole of Scotland. I regret speeches which denigrate the achievements of the North-West. I accept that the world does not owe Merseyside or the North-West a living, nor are we entitled to expect a living for our ports unless they are competitive, but I should like to pay my tribute to the Government for the massive help they have given to Seaforth. We are also very grateful for the great help that has been given to Cammell Laird shipbuilders recently.
That being said, the fact remains that fewer and fewer people can now produce more and more wealth. It is as well to remember that it takes 150 men a week to load or discharge an average conventional cargo ship, whereas 30 men can clear a container ship of comparable tonnage in one day. Because of vastly quicker turn round at ports, five container ships can now provide the equivalent transport of 40 conventional ships. This is the technological revolution which we have to face. Unless action is taken the position will get worse.
Some parts of the North-West have a reputation for lack of amenities in comparison with the South and South-East. Until recently the slowness of our road communications compared, for instance, with those in Bristol caused private enterprise to shy away from Merseyside. Private enterprise can only be forced to come to Merseyside through the issue of IDCs, as was Ford. We have Little-woods, the Ocean Steamship Company and Pilkington, but with those exceptions the power of decision of Merseyside has largely gone. Many of the factories are merely branches of much bigger organisations, and if there is a decline in trade the outlying factories on Merseyside and elsewhere are the first to close down.
I am still a believer in Keynes's doctrine of public works. Across-the-board cuts in taxation, stimulating though they may be to the national economy, do not help places like Merseyside as much as they help other areas. When the economic pundits complain that the South and the South-East are getting overheated, Merseyside is hardly tepid. London stores have difficulty now in finding enough staff,

but that could not apply today in Merseyside. Employment for the labour that was best suited to our local industry in years gone by is no longer available. I therefore welcome the major retraining schemes of the Government.
My plea for the future is that we should plan much further ahead than we have done in the past. What has been said about Irlam applies equally to Shotton. Shotton and Irlam are communities which depend on steel, and I hope that there will be mini-steel works in both places. One does not need to be a Socialist to believe in public works. The Conservative Party believes in infrastructure, and there is an immense amount still to be done in Lancashire.
Operation Eyesore provides grants of 85 per cent. or when the general grant is taken into account, 91 per cent., but to many local authorities it is a burden to find even the 9 per cent., and specialist staff is in short supply. In my constituency there are wooden schools, as there are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Those schools should be replaced, and the unemployed building labour should be used for this purpose. But the plans have not even been prepared because, although there are unemployed architects and draughtsmen and the land is available, that development is not in the particular schedule. Local authorities cannot afford to take on permanent staff. There is much to be said for the Government supplying a mobile technical force to go out to areas of high unemployment and look into the possibility of public works.
There are many empty offices on Merseyside. In the last 50 years office jobs have multiplied by six, whereas manufacturing jobs have hardly increased at all. That increase in office jobs has almost entirely been in the South and South-East. Because those areas have more amenities, I suspect that the wives of executives prefer to go there. Private enterprise is unwise not to take advantage of the cheaper rent and rates in provincial cities compared with London. But the problem arises that office rents and rates in provincial cities in the South are not so much more expensive than they are in provincial cities in the North. There is, therefore, much to be said for IDCs for office development, and I hope the Minister will consider that.
We have first-class clerical labour on Merseyside. I note that the Department of Employment has set up an office in Runcorn New Town, and I hope other Departments will follow that example. But the lion's share in the growth of office development has been in the South-East, although that area already had nearly half the existing office jobs. With 38 per cent. of the nation's total labour force, the South-East now has 59 per cent. of all jobs in insurance, banking and finance, 52 per cent. of all jobs in national government and 57 per cent. of all jobs in other professional services. Cannot the Government do something about this and induce the nationalised industries to do likewise?
We cannot wait for the new local authorities to come into being. Why cannot there be a loan or float to pay special staff to get out plans for the new local authorities before the democratic government of the county comes into being? This would save many months of idleness for many people. We are told that the new Merseyside County is an economic entity; yet we have only two tunnels at the north end and no proper communications at the south end. Why could not the staff I have referred to look into the possibility of a new bridge, which is so badly needed and which would make Liverpool Airport more prosperous?
No one can say that South Lancashire is the most beautiful part of Britain, but why should so many people make their money in the North of England and then move to Bournemouth or Torquay? There is much to be said for a differential form of taxation of unearned income, but I suppose that is impossible. I welcome, as does the whole House, the tree-planting year which comes into operation next year and will apply both to our roads and to our cities. We also need a major amenity such as the reclamation of the Dee or of Morecambe Bay, with its fishing, water ski-ing and its lines of communication to the beauties of North Wales. Those are amenities which can be planned and which will stimulate people to come to the North-West and stay there. We have a fine body of people there who need help, even more than what they are now getting from the Government—which is generous—to give them impetus. There is much to be done, and investment such as I have

suggested would be much more useful than a purchase of gold or depreciating dollars.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: In a debate of this nature there is bound to be repetition, and in order to relieve the agony a little I shall confine myself to two points. Before I do so, I should perhaps say that we are today discussing a very old story. Some 25 years ago I brought a deputation to see the late Sir Stafford Cripps to discuss precisely this subject: the need for development area status for Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley. Sir Stafford was right when he said that our area was a coal and cotton area and that the Govenment were having to bring from Europe displaced persons to work in the pits, in the mills and in agriculture. He told us that if the Government were to give development area status to our area it would mean that we should be a serious counter-attraction to other areas which badly needed manpower. Therefore nothing happened as a result of that deputation.
Now, 25 years later, most of the pits have closed, the mills have suffered a great contraction and little has been done until the Government's recent measures. The textile industry and those associated with it have complained, demonstrated and done whatever they can to make their points, but I feel that one can do this sort of thing too often. The Government have become so used to the noises made in Lancashire that they ignore them, which is a very bad thing.
I turn to the two points which I wish to raise in this debate. My area has experienced fairly heavy unemployment, although when we bear in mind closures elsewhere it has been rather less heavy than was anticipated. It is bad enough to see a man without a job, but I am not sure whether it is not as important to provide for a dispersal of skills because men have lost their jobs. We have seen such a dispersal from both the mills and the mines.
One particular matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is the lack of opportunity for apprenticeships in areas like mine. If skilled jobs do not exist in an area, inevitably there is no chance for apprenticeships to be awarded. I feel that the Government could do


something about the situation, possibly by allowing these young people to be paid expenses so that they may go to areas where there may be opportunities for apprenticeships.
I wish to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about the environment. Unfortunately, we all realise too well that coal cannot be dug out of the ground without some evidence being left on top. There is not only the problem of slag heaps which affect the Environment but also the question of subsidence.
I have never been able to understand why the people who live in mining areas should have to suffer the inconvenience of subsidence and then be called upon to contribute towards the cost of putting things right. Coal is one of the greatest assets enjoyed by British industry. Therefore, it must not become a liability to those who live in mining areas by their being called upon to meet the high costs of coping with subsidence.
A number of well-meaning people have gone much further in their criticisms of Lancashire than is wise. People who have tried to help the situation have tended to cry "stinking fish". We must seek to sell Lancashire as an area because it has a great deal to offer. We have one of the finest road systems in the country; we have people who have generations of accomplishment not only in the pits and the mills but in the finer aspects of machine work. These people would be an asset to any employer who wants to set up in business in our part of the world.
I remember once making a statement which, in the event, turned out to be a little unwise. I was lamenting the fact that miners were being thrown out of work and I said that, because they had worked most of their lives underground, they were not the most adaptable sort of people. I was soon disabused when an employer told me "As long as I have vacancies, I will take every redundant miner you can send me. I have never had a better set of men working for me."
Since we have so many things to offer, above all the many skills of our people, I would make a plea to hon. Members to join in selling the services and cap-

abilities to be found in our region. Incidentally, for the benefit of the wives of directors and executives who think that Lancashire is not for them, I wish to tell them that in Lancashire and North Cheshire we have some of the best, sophisticated, snob residential areas in existence. I assure them that they will be well looked after if they come to live in Lancashire.

7.35 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a pleasure to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. H. Boardman), who has given such robust support to the aspirations of the North-West. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development was right to stress the tremendous potential of the North-West. I was glad to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House expressing their confidence in the future.
I was also pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leigh criticise those on this side who cry "Stinking fish", because I believe that too many area tend to run themselves down.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned the North-West Industrial Development Association whose news letter for 21st June made interesting reading. It said:
The gloom of the past year seems to be giving way to an atmosphere of confidence for the future. This is particularly so in the North-West.
The hon. Member also said that we suffer the handicap of having so many old-fashioned factories. Again I wish to quote from the news letter:
We welcome the new factory building grants which will not only help to bring in new industry, but will provide positive incentives for the modernisation of our old factory premises in existing industries.
There is now no discrimination against existing firms.
It is true that we have suffered a good deal from the consequences of mergers, and we know all about this subject in Lancaster. We suffered grievously when the Socialist Government's measures attracted an important slice of one of our most important industries away to Scotland. During the Labour Government's period of office unemployment figures in our area not only doubled from May, 1964, to May, 1970, but increased


2½ times, from 350 to 855 as a direct result of Socialist Government measures.
I have never hesitated to say that the rate of unemployment last year was at a wholly unacceptable level. Indeed, I led a delegation to the Minister and I pointed this out to him in no uncertain terms. However, I am glad to say that since April this year unemployment in my area has been falling steeply. Although we may see a temporary increase this month as the students on vacation sign on for work, I believe that when the figures are published we shall see that the underlying trend will be downward.
There was bitter disappointment in my constituency when the Socialist Government flatly refused to implement the recommendations of the Hunt Report, which would have gone a long way towards stemming the rise in unemployment which was so catastrophic in the last year of Socialist Government and in the first year of Conservative Government. But I am proud to say that Lancaster did not wring its hands in lament. In collaboration with Morecambe it set about developing its own industrial estate and servicing sites and building factories and tried to attract new industry. As a result we are particularly well prepared to take advantage of the new intermediate area incentives introduced by my right hon. Friend when he was in charge of regional policy.
We are also indebted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in awarding us a substantial grant to help to improve derelict railway land and to continue in our aim—which will never flag—of making our city the most attractive in the country, and an area to which new firms will be eager to come.
However, we are also very eager to get our fair share of office jobs. We were sorry that we lost the Post Office Savings department from the borders of Morecambe and Lancaster. We are anxious to get more office jobs into the area and to have a new Government training centre at Carnforth to serve the Lancaster and Furness sub-regions. I hope that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will press his right hon. Friend in that regard.
We can offer the fascination of an historic city, marvellous countryside,

pleasant homes, good well-staffed schools, ready-prepared sites, a co-operative city council which has been commended to me personally by every industrialist who has come to the area, road and rail transport unsurpassed anywhere in the country, and a warmth of welcome which northerners know how well to give. We have immense faith in our future, and we look forward to it with the utmost confidence.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Parry: Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have highlighted the serious unemployment position in the North-West Region, and I am certain that many other right hon. and hon. Members will expand upon the position in the course of the debate. I want briefly to deal with Merseyside, since I am a Liverpool Member, not only with the present position of Merseyside, which is serious enough, but also with the possibly critical period during the next 12 months which may affect the already unacceptably high level of unemployment.
In my constituency recently I have met many young boys and girls who have been unable to find work since they left school last Christmas. There is a high level of unemployment on Merseyside, especially among the over-45s, many of whom have been unemployed for six months or more. In some instances I know of men who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. That shows the black side of Liverpool. Other possible closures and redundancies make the picture even blacker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Marsden) has pointed out the serious problem of Cammell Laird and the shipbuilding and ship repair industry on Merseyside. The great reduction in the work force and the loss of Government work has led to a position of open fear in the hearts of workers in the industry. The excellent work record of the workers at Cammell Laird in respect of industrial relations and in meeting delivery schedules surely merits encouragement from the Government. In this respect I disagree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who over-exaggerated the position of industrial unrest on Merseyside, especially in respect of the shipbuilding


and ship repair industries. The recent deputation of workers from Cammell Laird which was received at the House by Members of both parties had great faith in the future. I have no doubt that an early meeting will be sought with the Minister for Industrial Development.
I have great fears not only for Cammell Laird but for Merseyside in general. In yesterday's edition of the Liverpool Daily Post there was an article pointing out that there will be a one-day stoppage on 27th July called by Liverpool dockers to highlight their fear of a further reduction in the work force in Liverpool Docks. This is not what the national Press normally calls a wildcat strike. It is not a strike which has been called by militants. It is a sincere expression by the dockers of their great fears about the future.
I have in my possession a letter dated 10th July, 1972, which has been sent to all employees of the Ocean Port Services Ltd. It gives notice of a 50 per cent. reduction in the labour force. It reads:
As you know, we have started on the process of reducing our company to a size commensurate with our foreseen business. By April of next year OPS should again be in a break-even position and handling cargo at the rate of about 500,000 tons per annum. We shall be about one half as big as in 1970/1. Although such a very radical contraction of our company should bring us out of our present serious loss-making period—albeit at considerable cost—we shall still be extraordinarily vulnerable to fluctuations in trade and disruption of work. We have therefore decided, as an attempt at engendering greater job security for those who will continue to work in OPS, to discuss and investigate with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company some means of establishing a joint operation in the cargo handling field, which may include the Docks Company's acquiring the ownership of OPS. The Board of the MD &amp; HC have agreed to such an investigation.
I may say that I fear that such an investigation will lead to fewer job opportunities in the Liverpool Docks.
The letter goes on:
We sincerely regret the need to introduce yet another study and possible consequential action into the daily working of our company but we know that the exercise could be of considerable importance to the future of everyone involved. We shall advise you of developments as soon as there is any hard news.
I sincerely hope that that last sentence really means hard news and not hard lines or even bad news. I intend to send a copy of that letter to the Minister.
I fear that the proposed closure of four hospitals in my constituency will lead to further unemployment. That is a fear which is shared by many trade unions with members employed in the hospital service. To this end, hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies will be meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to-morrow in order to discuss the matter with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) dealt with the proposed closure of the Irlam steel works. I want briefly to touch on the future of the Shotton works. Although technically it is not in the North-West region, many hundreds of workers from the Greater Liverpool area are employed at Shotton, and any further redundancies will affect an already dark position in Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) has spotlighted the critical position at Shotton to the Minister.
My concluding point concerns what in my opinion is the retrograde step to seek entry into the EEC from the point of view of the region's future. Unless the communications network in the North-West is urgently improved, especially in terms of motorways, we shall see a further recession of trade in the region to the advantage of the already prosperous South.
I undertook to restrict my remarks to a period of 10 minutes, and I intend to honour my promise. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind all these points when he replies to the debate. I hope sincerely that a positive approach can be made to alleviate the serious unemployment position in the North-West.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Like a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, I should like first to make some mention of Jack McCann. I was almost his opponent at the Rochdale by-election. In the result, it was very luck for me that I was not. For a short time he was my pair. I know that he will be missed greatly in this House.
I speak from a different background from that of a number of other hon. Members who have spoken from the point of view of the heavier industrial aspects of Lancashire. I represent an


area which is largely residential and involved in tourism and light industry. None the less, Blackpool,a considerable town of 150,000 population, has had persistently high unemployment, and it is no more pleasant to be unemployed in Blackpool than anywhere else.
I concentrate on my area this evening with the clear knowledge that our prosperity depends entirely on Lancashire's prosperity. If Lancashire does not do well, Blackpool does not do well.
Before turning to Blackpool's problems, it is worth noting one or two matters which have gone quite well for us. We have achieved intermediate area status at last with many other parts of the area. Our communications have been greatly improved; we are nearer the link through from Blackpool to the motorway. Although this cannot be shared by everyone, we have managed to get rid of SET, which was selectively adverse to Blackpool.
We have to concentrate on the service industries, and I should like to make two points about Blackpool in that connection.
First, it is clear that, although grants are available for tourist projects, even so, they go to those areas with complete development status. For example, it would have been possible to argue for a selective grant for the zoo which Blackpool has just started. It will be very attractive and may have up to 1 million visitors a year. If that zoo had been in an area of full development status it could have attracted a grant. For Blackpool there was no grant.
I accept that the rate of hotel building which has occurred in London probably had to stop. The vast increase in hotel building, stimulated by the grants, was probably overdone in the South-East. This cannot be said of Blackpool, which has not had a new hotel for 35 years. It now has the prospect of a new hotel. Thankfully, too, there have been extensions to a number of hotels in Blackpool, a notable one being in the north of the town.
We are now left with the Industry Bill, and any help for which we can look to it for tourist projects comes from Part II. It is noticeable that projects which would help tourism come under Part II of the Industry Bill, which is entirely discretionary, whereas a proposal for a new

factory, for instance, would come under Part I and get the grant regardless.
I turn now to the broader problems of Lancashire. I have so far addressed my mind, as it were, to the service side, not to heavy industry, which I do now. I am sure that Blackpool needs to encourage new office development. That comes by not just building new offices but getting them filled and providing employment. The Government, as one of the largest office employers in the country, have a prime responsibility to take active steps to send some of their civil servants from the crowded South-East to the North-West. I think that help could be given, under the provisions of Clause 7 of the Industry Bill, for new office developments. If we can do this, we may draw back to the North-West the headquarters of firms which have been moving to London.
We must take the opportunities now before us to use the grants which are available from many sources to change the whole enrivonment in the North-West. It cannot be said to be an attractive drive up the motorway as one comes from Warrington. Yet within a few miles of that motorway there is some of the loveliest countryside in the North-West—indeed, in the whole country. If we in the North-West are prepared to take the trouble and to put our hands in our own pockets we can once again make it a very lovely place in which to work and live. I believe it is better to live north of Birmingham than south. I have sampled both. The debate should be the opportunity for those of us who come from the North-West to point out that we can make it worth while for people to come and work among us and so bring the prosperity we need.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made about Jack McCann, who was a great friend and constituent of mine. He will be missed in Eccles, and in Rochdale, where he took an active part as a constituency Member. He will be greatly missed in this House. I have no doubt that, apart from his jovial personality, he would have taken his place in this House today and advanced the cause of cotton—a cause which he held near and dear to his


heart. I am sure the House would want to send its sympathies to his widow and children.
I do not wish to start on a controversial note, but I feel that I must. I live in an area to the north of Trafford Park where 12,000 jobs have been lost over the past four years. To the west we have had the problem of the closures at Irlam. Therefore, the difficulties that my constituents and people in that part of the greater Manchester area have suffered are clear.
My controversial note concerns the Industry Bill now being put through this House by a Conservative Government. I think that hon. Members on both sides were prepared to welcome the Bill until they found that it may be a hollow sham, because it now seems that legislation here will be subject to scrutiny by other countries. I believe in the wider groupings of nations. However, I regret that we are losing some of our links with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth would not have interfered or had the audacity to interfere with or to question our legislation in the way that West Germany has in recent times.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House during the statement made by my right hon. Friend, but I am sure he would not wish to mislead the House. There has been no interference by the West German Government. There has been a request to the Brussels Commission for information—no more, no less.

Mr. Carter-Jones: To put it at its lowest, many of us would not be prepared to accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the interpretation of "information". The very fact that the West German Government questioned the legislation is enough to cause anxiety to the people in my area who would have benefited from non-intervention in the implementation of the Industry Bill when it becomes an Act. Therefore, perhaps hon. Gentlemen will understand the misgiving of my constituents at the thought of much-needed development in my area being thwarted by the actions of a third party outside this country.

Mr. Winterton: rose—

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am anxious to give everyone a chance to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair number of interventions, and there are six more Members who wish to speak.
In our area we have suffered the decline of four major industries—coal, cotton, iron and steel and heavy engineering. The rate of decline at Trafford Park is accelerating, and we are squandering the skills of a large number of people. What we are faced with at Trafford Park and at Irlam is a decline in investment. It may be that investment will come forward as a result of the Industry Bill, but it may well come too late. I hold no brief for any Government or party on this issue. The area has suffered for a long time, and there should have been a far greater amount of investment in the skills and know-how of the people long ago.
What worries me intensely is that we need massive, almost colossal, aid if we are not to lose altogether the skilled people who are leaving the area. Many hon. Members have referred proudly to the decline in unemployment in their areas since last year. I live in an area in which the unemployment rate is higher this year than it was last year, and I take no comfort from that. What worries me is the tremendous social cost of unemployment, and it is high time that we realised the significance of the threat of unemployment to the social fabric of a community.
As the House may have realised, I come from the Principality. I was brought up in an area of mass unemployment, and I never thought that I would live to see the day when fears about unemployment would rear their head again, that the dread fear of unemployment would be present. Our unemployment figures have risen, but they would have been higher still had it not been for the fact that large numbers of people from the North-West have been compelled to move to other more salubrious areas in the South-East.
My arguments have been adduced about the quality of life in this area. We have large tracts which are in need of rehabilitation and restoration. The area can be made attractive and re-vitalised, but it needs massive injections of aid from the Government for this purpose. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt refer to this when winding up the debate. We


need aid in this area because we have experienced the ravages of the oldest industries of the Industrial Revolution. The amount of aid is such that no local authority can possibly afford it. The North-West has suffered more than any other area because of the wide variety of industries which have declined—coal, cotton, heavy engineering and others.
My constituency has the proud record of being the place where Naysmyth produced the steam hammer which was of vital importance to the Industrial Revolution, and where the first effective industrial canal was developed. When one talks about communications, we are set fair for travel by road, by rail, by air and by canal. What we need now is a massive injection of capital, either from the State or from private industry, as aid to clear our derelict areas. Above all, we want no interference from Europe in the development of an area which is vital to the well-being of our people.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: There are so many facets to the economic problems of the North-West that it is best to deal with just one, and I want to talk about dereliction.
The Hunt Report on Intermediate Areas, the CBI and the North-West Industrial Development Association all concur in the view that this environmental deficiency is an important element in the present situation. The Hunt Committee, for example, had this to say:
In analysing causes for concern we drew attention to the widespread areas of dereliction. It is in our view one of the outstanding examples of the way in which an unfavourable environment can depress economic opportunity. While despoliation of the natural environment went unregarded when coal mining and other industries located on or close to the coalfield were booming the dereliction which was left now imposes a significant economic penalty on the area around since it deters the modern industry which is needed for the revitalisation of these areas and helps to stimulate outward migration. We consider that urgent remedial action is needed.
There are nearly 15,000 acres of derelict land in our part of the world, and about 12,000 of these are considered bad enough to justify treatment. But this figure masks the true extent of the problem because so many of the acres which are now in active use for tipping or exca-

vation are not found in the returns made every year to the Department of the Environment.
But even on the basis of the official statistics it means that the North-West Region has by far the highest percentage of its total land area blighted by the mess of past industrial activity, far more than any other part of the country, and because so much of it is concentrated in the heavily-built-up areas it has an impact out of all proportion to the actual acreage involved.
It is all the more disheartening therefore to find that the rate of progress in clearing this mess is still slow and that the rate of clearance is appreciably below the national average. In the last two years the Northern Region, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside and the East Midlands have all cleared more acres of bad land than has the North-West.
I accept that the Lancashire County Council has an outstanding record in this respect, but the county boroughs are falling down on the job. Only 288 acres were cleared in 1970, and in that year every one of the planning authorities, with the noble exception of Barrow-in-Furness, failed to meet the targets which they had set themselves. Nine authorities failed to complete any clearance at all, and four of those still had no plans to undertake any derelict land clearance in 1971. These were Burnley, Salford, Oldham and Liverpool.
Where does the fault lie? I do not think that it lies with the central Government. I have not been without criticism of some of the environmental policies pursued by the Department of the Environment, but the Department has done its utmost to persuade local authorities to clear more derelict land. I should like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do more to encourage local authorities in their constituencies to get on with this job. We have to persuade them that ugliness is not just a question of aesthetics. It is a cause, as well as a symptom, of decline, because no modern industrialist will put down his roots among slagheaps and rotting and abandoned installations. Towns which neglect this problem are condemning themselves to increasing dependence on failing and ailing industries.
There is one thing which I should like to see central Government do for the North-West. The present level of grant in the whole area, with the exception of Merseyside, is 75 per cent. I find it unreasonable that Liverpool, with relatively few acres of dereliction, should qualify for 85 per cent. grant, and with the rate support grant rather more—nearly 91 per cent.—whereas South-East Lancashire, which has the biggest concentration of dereliction in the whole of the United Kingdom, gets a lower rate of grant. It seems to me that this is part of the old thinking where we tied assistance to the employment statistcis rather than to the problems which are the cause of our malaise in the North-West. In my view, environmental assistance ought to be given to the areas with the greatest need and not to those with the highest level of unemployment. This principle has been accepted in the Industry Bill. That is what it is all about. We are tackling the underlying problems. Therefore, I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that he felt that this discrepancy was justified.
I would not go so far as to demand what the North-West Industrial Development Association has demanded—100 per cent. grants. I think it is fair and reasonable that the local authorities should bear some responsibility for the project, in which case there must be some form of financial involvement as well. But I cannot accept that discrimination between one part of Lancashire and another is fair or reasonable.
I would call in aid once again the findings of the Hunt Committee Report:
We must state plainly that we do not consider the present differential to be justified…an improved environment is needed as much in older industrial areas, especially in the North-West, as in the development areas. We, therefore, see no reason why a different level of grant should obtain." Nor do those who live in the area.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I wish to address myself to the latter part of the Opposition Motion dealing with the impact of the Government's social policies as applied in the region. I wish in this connection to raise two specific problems applying to my constituency, and I hope I shall get

a positive reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment whose Department is concerned with both matters I wish to raise.
I have received from a large number of residents in the Broom Lane area of Levenshulme bitter complaints about the state of the land owned by British Rail in that area. I took up the matter some months ago with Mr. Richard Marsh and swift action was taken to deal with the grievances, but during the period since then the whole of this land has deteriorated again. It is a foetid mess, a danger to health of the people, including children, living in that area. The people have come to me and complained again about this area, but I regret that on this occasion Mr. Marsh has not been forthcoming. I wrote to him in May and I received no more than an acknowledgment. I wrote to him two weeks ago and I received not even an acknowledgment.
Meanwhile, during this hot summer this land with a polluted brook is causing unhappiness and fears for health, as well as social damage to the people of the Broom Lane area. I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary will contact Mr. Marsh and ask that immediate action be taken to help the many people living in the area upon whose homes this land, owned and neglected by British Rail, abuts.
My second point concerns playgrounds for children in my constituency. We have a sad record of what happens to children in my constituency who are deprived of playgrounds. Only a few weeks ago a small boy living in the Heywood House block of flats was killed on the railway line near to Heywood House. In a matter of a year or so, two boys have been drowned in pools in clay pits in my area. Another child was killed while playing near the Mancunian Way, the motorway which is the boundary of my constituency. These deaths are the direct result of lack of amenity for the people living in the poorer areas of my constituency, and it is a sad fact that these accidents always befall the children of poorer parents living in poorer areas, because children of better-off parents naturally have more amenities and more places in which they can play—for example, in their parents' own gardens.
We in the Ardwick constituency—councillors together with myself—have fought hard for more playgrounds for the children in the constituency. The Manchester City Council is very anxious to provide these playgrounds. It co-operates in every possible way. But there is a terrible shortage of money, and unhappily playgrounds are fairly down the list of priorities in view of the kind of housing situation which affects my constituents. It took me more than a year to fight for a piece of derelict land near Heywood House, opposite Rostron Close, to be turned into a playground. After 13 months it was turned into a playground but it still lacks equipment of any kind. It is simply a barren piece of land.
I ask the Government to look again at the whole question of grants to local authorities for providing playgrounds. I say quite flatly that I have had enough of having to write to parents who have had the terrible disaster of losing small children who have gone away to play in areas when they should have a playground of their own.
Those are the two specific matters with which I am concerned—the matter of amenity, of dealing with dereliction, this eyesore problem, and the matter of providing playgrounds for children in my constituency so that they can have somewhere decent to play in and their parents will not be worried sick when they are out of their sight.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure hon. Members will share and perhaps endorse the opinions and comments expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). As a West Midlander who has been adopted by the North-West, I am finding this debate extremely interesting and I hope that by the end I shall have learned a great deal from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I should like to mention part of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), who, I believe, quite rightly reflected the concern that he felt and which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House for young people endeavouring to find employment and those who, unfortunately, find themselves

made redundant. It was rather a pity that in reflecting this concern he did not mention that the Government are establishing two Government training centres in the North-West Region. One, I gather, will open in Trafford Park by the spring of 1974 and the other is planned to open in South-East Lancashire by 1975. Each of these centres will provide places for 200 people, and I think that this is a step in the right direction. I gather from a parliamentary Answer that a further 310 places will be provided in the region by early next year. I think this total of 710 is a fairly worthy figure and reflects credit upon the Government.
However, I am not saying that the present Government alone are concerned about this problem. The problem was obviously the concern of the previous Government as well. I do not believe, though, that we can talk about the North-West in isolation of the overall economic situation in this country. Therefore, I hope I may talk in general terms about the economic situation. I believe that it is undeniably true that the months since the Budget have provided clear evidence that the Government's dramatic reflationary measures are beginning to take effect, albeit a little slowly. Unemployment, although still tragically and unacceptably high, has dropped substantially. Industrial expansion is well under way.
Individual economic indicators reflect the optimism and buoyancy of the economy. Retail sales were up in the first quarter of this year by about 4½ per cent. New car registrations—we all know that the car industry is one of our biggest industries and one of the biggest exporters—were at a record level in May this year, about 57 per cent. up on May, 1971. Unemployment fell by 103,000 in May, and by a further 68,000 in June.
What is, perhaps, most revealing, especially in the light of some of the comments and criticisms levelled at the Government by hon. Members opposite, is that the standard of living measured in terms of real personal disposable income per head rose between June, 1970, and December, 1971, at an annual rate of 2·7 per cent., almost twice as fast as the 1·5 per cent. a year achieved under the Labour Government.
Meanwhile—this also is important—our external financial position remains strong. We have paid off all the remaining short and medium-term official debt, much of which was run up by the Labour Party when in power. Although in recent months the visible balance of trade has been in deficit, June once again showed a surplus; and each month invisibles have produced a substantial surplus for us, ensuring a credit balance overall each and every month.
The floating of the £ at the end of June, caused by international concern at wage inflation in this country, will enable the Chancellor to take the pressure off sterling and at the same time honour his commitment to a 5 per cent. economic growth rate.
Inflation is the growing cancer in any economy, and it must be contained if a sound economy giving increased prosperity to all is to be achieved. The Government are beginning to contain inflation. The retail price index shows that prices are rising at only about half the rate of 12 months ago—still too fast, but a substantial reduction. It is vital that the Government, employers and trade unions resist excessive wage claims which result in loss of business, redundancy and unemployment. The CBI price initiative, which, I am delighted to see, it intends to continue, and its extension to the nationalised industries, has been a step in the right direction. The Government's own action in taking £650 million a year off taxes on spending, by halving SET, and by progressive reductions in purchase tax have further helped to reduce price increases.
Much more needs to be done, and the Government are rightly seeking the cooperation of all groups in industry to achieve a better control of inflation in the national interests. Too seldom, I believe, do we in this House talk about the national interest irrespective of party advantage.
The North-West, including my own constituency of Macclesfield, has benefited from Government action to stimulate the economy. I particularly welcome the extension of intermediate area status to the whole of the North-West. I welcome also the derelict land clearance grants and the house improvement grants. I

thoroughly endorse the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) when he said that he would like to see the dereliction grant increased all over the North-West from 75per cent. to 85 per cent., and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that.
These financial aids to the North-West could transform the area to the advantage of all who live in it. Although the position in the North-West has improved in recent months, it has not improved as much as other areas have improved, notably the South-East. I believe that this state of affairs has several causes. In the past, the North-West has depended on certain traditional industries, coal, heavy engineering, steel andtextiles—industries which are static or, perhaps, contracting. A far wider diversification of industry in these areas must be achieved if they are not to be vulnerable to the expansion or contraction of one industry or another.
I deplore the fact that the textile industry has been used as a trading pawn by successive Governments, with the result that one of our country's largest employers has shed tens of thousands of skilled workers, to the disadvantage of the United Kingdom economy. At the same time, insufficient alternative industries have been encouraged to move into the area to make up for the closures.
My own constituency has been fortunate in that two large pharmaceutical companies have established units there. But this was sanctioned only because the Macclesfield Borough Council was prepared to accept Manchester overspill into the area, so that the overall gain to the people of the area was not as great as it might have been.
Together with a number of light engineering firms, Pharmaceuticals have brought new prosperity to the constituency, raising the average wages in the area and giving excellent conditions of work. It will be a black day if the Labour Party attempts to nationalise the pharmaceutical industry should it achieve office again. That would not be popular either with the industry or with its large and growing work force.
I urge the Government to follow a policy of buying British wherever and whenever possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James


Lamond)—Iam delighted to see that he has returned to his place—rightly referred to the British textile industry, and I endorse virtually all he said. I make a similar case for the Hawker-Siddeley company, one of the most progressive and efficient aerospace companies in this country, with expertise and good facilities and an excellent skilled work force. By placing additional business with this company, the Government would not only strengthen Britain's defence but would ensure the future employment of many hundreds of skilled men in the North-West in a modern technological industry. It is modern industries of this kind which are vital to the future prosperity of the area.
I support the call voiced by several hon. Members that the Government consider industrial development certificates for office development. I believe that this is the only way to get office development to move into the North-West. We have the capacity for it, we have the space for it, and—my goodness—we need that sort of employment desperately in the North-West.
I turn to the matter of communications, and especially the roads in my constituency. Many hon. Members are more fortunate in having roads in their constituencies up to modern specification. In my constituency, in both Macclesfield and Congleton, there has been sad neglect by the various authorities concerned. Heavy traffic from Buxton, from Runcorn, from Manchester and from Ellesmere thunders through the area, polluting the environment, and running through the towns on totally inadequate roads. The building of the Congleton relief road is shortly to commence, but in Macclesfield the problem is likely to continue for some time yet unless the appropriate Government Department will do more than pay lip service to the declared policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment, namely, that main transportation routes should where possible be located outside urban areas to prevent the strangling of our towns by traffic noise and pollution. Even if it cannot be made out on paper to be a viable economic proposition, it will shortly be found to be so if this road is allowed to go ahead.
The North-West has a great deal to offer. The North-West Industrial Development Association is doing an excellent

job. I attended its recent annual general meeting. The contribution it is making to the development of industry in the area is substantial. The area needs promoting. Public relations are vital and I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to assisting financially the association to meet its promotion costs. I believe that the association itself has made this plea to the Government, and I fully support it.
The North-West has tremendous potential, as has been said from both sides of the House. I shall do all I can to advance and promote those interests. But perhaps the best pill of hope for the North-West and the country at large would be a long period of co-operation in industrial relations.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I shall concentrate on the three chief industrial problems of South-East Lancashire. They are the level of public investment, the problems of industrial dereliction, not only land dereliction, and the issue of employment prospects in the textile industry in the face of the coming removal of quotas if Britain enters the EEC.
The basic justification for demands for more positive Government policies, which no doubt prompted the considerable concessions of 22nd March, is the fact that over the last year the North-West has slid down the vicious spiral into becoming an area of chronically excess unemployment when compared with the national average. The latest figures show that unemployment is 40 per cent. above the national average, with a rate of 4·8 per cent. compared with a national 3·5 per cent. Because of its poorer quality industrial structure, the North-West is finding it much more difficult than other regions to climb out of recession. Over the last six months the decrease in the proportion of wholly unemployed in the North-West has been only one-third of the national average while the level of redundancies as a proportion of the work force has been worse in the North-West than in any other region without exception.
These are sombre and arresting facts clearly calling for decisive and imaginative Government intervention. It is doubtful whether the Industry Bill package, although it goes a long way,


goes far enough, particularly in view of the loosening of the association between regional investment preference and the creation of specific jobs. The Minister saw this loosening as a clear advantage but I would say that, in the short term at any rate, it is a clear disadvantage.
One facet of regional aid of special importance not only for this but the wider effects throughout the local economy is the level of public investment. It is true that public investment has been increasing steadily, both relatively and in absolute terms, over the last seven years, but in view of the many declining or static industries, or at least the complete lack of enough growth industries, it can scarcely be argued that the region is getting the share it desperately needs. The national level of public investment is £46 per head of the population, whereas in the North-West the figure is £48, but if the region is to avoid the consequences of cyclical fluctuations within the economy positive discrimination in favour of it because of its significantly higher unemployment rate must be considerably larger than that.
One aspect of public investment which a number of hon. Members have rightly mentioned is office development. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that perhaps the most worrying feature of the Government's regional package was the absence of any Government push to promote this kind of development in the North-West. It is this type of employment that has increased fastest over the past decade, yet the increase has been largely concentrated in the South-East, which already has half the existing office jobs. Surely, therefore, we have reached the time when we need a stringent office development permit policy as tight as industrial development certificate control if the job element in the new regional package is not to be seriously weakened. Alternatively, will the Government reconsider extending operational and building grants to cover office projects in the North-West? Either alternative would be acceptable. What we cannot accept is neither.
The second problem which particularly concerns South-East Lancashire is that of land dereliction and industrial

dereliction. Although a great deal of useful help has been given, this remains a major drawback in attracting new industry. Since it is no responsibility of the North-West that it alone should be penalised by the remaining scars of the Industrial Revolution, will the Government reconsider the introduction of 100 per cent. derelict land clearance grants, or if the Minister believes, as he said, that there should be an element of local involvement, will they offer 95 per cent. grants?
It would also substantially transform the landscape of much of Lancashire if the definition of dereliction were extended to include properties. Chadderton, part of my constituency, has the dubious distinction of having some of the oldest industrial property in the country. Ninety per cent. of it was built before 1914, compared with 35 per cent. for the whole of the North-West and the 20 per cent. national average. Much of it is clearly past redemption and justifies the remark of Lord Kearton at the closure of Courtaulds' Moorfield Mill at Shaw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett):
This particular mill has not shared in our extensive re-equipment programme because the buildings are old and unsuitable for modern high-speed plant.
Of how many other buildings in the North-West might he have said that?
The third area of acute concern is textile employment prospects in the face of next year's removal of the quotas. The Oldham area has traditionally been the centre of the cotton textile industry. With the loss of nearly 300,000 jobs over the past two decades, there is acute anxiety about the fate of the remaining segment. The Prime Minister recently quoted the estimate of the British Textile Employers Association that between 3,100 and 5,300 jobs were at risk. That was a deliberately conservative estimate, taking no account of price disruption, which will cause even efficient mills to decide that it is no longer worth staying in business. Even if the eventual loss of jobs numbered only 5,000 to 7,000—though I do not think that "only" is the right word to use—that would be considerable enough, and I fear that the figures will be worse. That would still have a traumatic effect, because of the very limited area in which


it would apply, unless the Government were prepared to take precautionary action.
Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession allows the EEC Commission to authorise emergency action to be taken during the transitional period to deal with "serious and persistent difficulties". There can be no doubt that serious and persistent difficulties will occur, because the last time it was intended to remove the quotas, on 1st January this year, company order books showed that import penetration of the home market which had rocketed from the present very high 53 per cent. to a staggering 85 per cent. The significance of those figures is shown by the fact that the comparable EEC figures for member countries vary between only 3 per cent. and 18 per cent.
What the industry wants—there is no division of interest here; it is unions, employers and workpeople all together—is a declaration by the Government invoking Article 135 on the unambiguous evidence of all that happened six months ago and all that will undoubtedly recur in six months' time. It is not enough to wait for such disruption, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry suggested yesterday, with all the ensuing industrial chaos and the disaster for employment, before taking action. What we want is a declaration now.
The issue is critical, perhaps the single most critical issue in South-East Lancashire. Nothing that the Minister said in his speech or in answer to interventions does anything to allay the anxieties. Unless a satisfactory commercial policy is worked out with the EEC which affords the developing countries a reasonable access to markets without forcing Lancashire to bear a disproportionate cost of the economic consequences, the new regional aid, valuable though it is, will come neither fast enough nor extensively enough to avert a catastrophe which will override the most massive convulsions which the industry has already tragically endured.

Mr. Chataway: Before the hon. Gentleman lashes himself into too much of a fervour, may I say that of course there are problems in some sectors but I am sure he will not want to overlook me fact that the textile industry as a whole,

taking the balance of advantage and disadvantage, welcomes entry into the EEC and believes that it will be favourable to it.

Mr. Meacher: I had finished my speech and I will spend less than half a minute replying to the Minister. Whilst what he has said is perfectly true, it is the yarn and cotton spinning section which regards entry as a disaster. As for the Prime Minister's remarks to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, that the weaving and finishing sectors believe that there will be corresponding advantages, if there are sharp fluctuations in supply which is likely, those sectors too may find it is a considerable disadvantage.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: There has rightly been quite a lot of talk in this debate about dereliction. I believe that the main purpose of the debate is to point out that the greatest dereliction is that of unemployment. I want to touch on the unemployment situation in Skelmersdale in my constituency. Skelmersdale is a new town and it has all the attractions of the Merseyside development area; it has none of the obsolescence of the old South-West Lancashire towns because it is a completely new town. Yet unemployment in the Skelmersdale new town area is the highest in the Merseyside area.
I go so far as to say that although in the bulletin issued by the Department of Employment the Skelmersdale figure is merged with the Ormskirk travel-to-work area figure and appears to be about 3·4 per cent., that is a disguised figure and the actual figure for Skelmersdale is probably between 7·5 per cent. and 8·5 per cent. It is a tremendous problem which the Government can play some part in solving. If they were to announce the building of a new hospital this would galvanise the area, it would inspire the people there and it would remind them that the Government were concerned about the future. It would provide job opportunities in a modern hospital when far too many of our young boys and girls face a very bleak future.
Second, the Government could get on with the industrial training centre. It has been said that we suffer from a vicious circle in the North-West and particularly in the South-West of Lancashire. We


have had the decline of the heavy engineering and mining industries which has created a lack of job opportunities for apprentices. We do not therefore have a reservoir of skill. People say to us "It is not much use coming to your part of the country because you do not have the skilled workers we need." The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. H. Boardman) that the Government should look closely at the question of job opportunities for apprentices, to provide the necessary reservoir of skill, is worthy of further attention.
Another thing which the Government could do in Skelmersdale—this has been hammered home a lot today—concerns office development. That is the biggest single growth industry in the country and the South-East already has far too high a proportion of the available jobs. I will not accept that the Government cannot direct many of the big concerns and Government bodies to the North-West. Let us have a fair distribution. We are in an age of supersonic travel, electronics and the like and I do not accept that we cannot put an office block in Skelmersdale, Wigan, Manchester or Liverpool without reducing a firm's efficiency. We have telephone and audio visual aids and I am certain that if the Government put their mind to it they could direct more of their industry to this area and they should do so.
We must be honest. The nationalised industries should not be immune from this kind of criticism and neither should some of our big unions. This is not a one-sided affair. We must not say that only the Government should do this. I believe that some of the trade unions could examine their own policies. The general office of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which is the union of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, is in the Manchester area. It is, I think, the only big union which maintains its headquarters in the North-West. I should like other unions to consider the possibility of siting their premises in the area. No doubt, like Government Departments, they will trot out all the usual clichés about why they would like to do it but cannot. Many such arguments are bogus. We should encourage people to move to the North-

West, because we have a desperate need for this type of job opportunity, particularly in Skelmersdale.
I am hurrying along because I want to emulate the performance of the vast majority of back-bench Members, whose example has enabled me to speak. While I was very annoyed, and still am annoyed, at the selection—it was absolutely diabolical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must take that back. He must not say that.

Mr. McGuire: I wish that I could find a way of giving what is called "the Yorkshireman's apology", Mr. Deputy Speaker. That means that I do not want to take it back, but if you want me to do so, I will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Fortunately, I know the hon. Gentleman well. I realise that his intentions are excellent and that he means to apologise. I will take his remarks as such.

Mr. McGuire: I suppose that is what is known as being snookered. I suppose I shall have to take it back, and I will do so. But it will not stop me writing a letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish to emulate the example of other back-bench Members who have spoken briefly and succinctly. I put to the Minister the point which was put to him forcefully by the North West Industrial Development Association, namely, the possibility of making available a grant for publicity purposes. This grant is already enjoyed by our Welsh and Scottish colleagues and, in England, by the North-East Development Association. We have as many problems as, if not more than, any of these areas and I do not think that a case can be made for discriminating against us. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter favourably.
I hope, too, that the Minister will look favourably at the question of industrial dereliction grants. My constituency, in South-West Lancashire, has possibly the highest proportion of derelict land in the country. It certainly has the highest protion in the North-West area, because of the history of the place. Industrial dereliction in my area means almost entirely


the reclamation of old mining areas. This is a colossal task for small authorities. Although the Lancashire County Council has faced up to it manfully, I believe that if we are to transform these areas they need to be cleared of industrial dereliction, which brought in its wake human obsolescence. In many areas we have a very poor housing record, which is part of the environmental set-up.
I know that there are Government grants for refurbishing, but I do not think that all councils are exercising themselves as they should. They are not being half as generous as they could be. They must give the standard amenity grant, but I feel that some of them are falling down on loosening the purse-strings in respect of the grant where they have a choice. This is a worthwhile grant which can be used substantially to increase the stock of good housing.
I ask the Minister to look favourably on the question of a grant for publicity and even more favourably on the possibility of increasing the industrial land reclamation grant. The coal mining industry was a national asset, and the problem of reclaiming the land should be faced on a national basis.
I hope that the forthcoming Bill concerning the mining industry will have written into it almost a guarantee to the Lancashire miners, who have suffered more from savage cuts than any other part of the country, that there will be no more pit closures unless there is exhaustion of coal. The savage policy pursued was a mistake which must not be repeated. If some of these things are done, the debate will have been worth while.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Tom Normanton: The debate has been used by right hon. and hon. Members as an opportunity to pay our respects to a recently departed friend and colleague. My wife and I knew Jack McCann well. We knew him personally and we knew him politically. I fought him in the 1959 General Election and I did so again in 1964. I lost the elections but I gained a friend. His going will be a great loss not only to myself and my family but to the House. He had qualities which I regard as of tremendous importance, particularly in the North-West. He was a great Lancastrian,

although partially by adoption. However he was a great public spirited citizen of the North-West. The region was proud of him and the service he rendered. One of the characteristics of the North-West is that it has men and women who are prepared to give willingly regardless of the cost. Jack McCann did just that, and no doubt others will do so.
I am delighted to note that the debate so far has been relatively conspicuous by the absence of partisan bitterness and rancour and by the evidence of a wish or a determination to be constructive in putting forward ideas and thoughts which will benefit the North-West. Unfortunately, the region suffers not so much from its present state but from its past, the legacy of the period of the Industrial Revolution, the years in which it not only went through difficult times but at the same time gave to the world in general, not only industrially and commercially but socially and in literature and art. One should not ignore the great traditions of The Guardianand the Halle Orchestra, of which the North-West is rightly and justifiably proud.
I deeply deplore the frequency with which we in the North-West appear to tend to allow ourselves to be denigrated, the frequency with which "stinking fish"—that is the only appropriate term—is used to describe the region. Perhaps Lancastrians or North-West citizens may be permitted to do it, but if we do we are foolish and irresponsible. It is one thing for us to do it but we will never allow others to do so.
The region suffers from the frequent historical reference to the dark Satanic mills of the time of Friedrich Engels as if those days still prevail. It is, I regret, insufficiently appreciated that there is a wide gap in industrial and technical terms—indeed, in all terms—between the conditions to which Engels referred during the Industrial Revolution and the revolution which has been taking place almost imperceptibly in the North-West during the last 25 years. Urban renewal, for example has been taking place, not necessarily because of Governments—indeed, some of us might say that it has taken place despite Governments—and the extent of that renewal cannot but impress those of us who knew the North-West of 30 years ago, even though it has perhaps been a somewhat painful process.


Many of us—and here I declare an interest—are also aware of the restructuring which has taken place in the industry of the North-West. Perhaps too frequently there have been critical comments about the history of the cotton industry over the last 20 years. Let us not forget that in the North-West we still have a substantial textile industry—I call it that and not the "cotton industry" because the old cotton industry has restructured itself in the modern idiom of a textile industry, all-embracing and covering the whole range of fibres and modern technology in its processes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry. That is only one in a large variety of new enterprises which have been growing up and expanding in the North-West, changing the character of its industry and making a massive contribution towards influencing and improving conditions in which people live and work. The computer and electronics industries are all relatively new and each in its way has made a contribution towards improving the North-West.
But lest any hon. Member on either side of the House is tempted to suggest that my comments imply a feeling of excessive satisfaction, I hasten to add that the progress in the last 25 years is only part of the road along which the North-West and its industry have to travel. A great deal has been done. I urge upon the local authorities, the county authorities and particularly the Government the need to intensify the process of clearing the dereliction—the legacy of the Industrial Revolution, examples of which still linger in various parts of the region. Progress is markedly visible and it is there for those who wish to identify achievements. But we still have a long way to go.
The progress, which has been considerable, in providing and extending the network of new roads and motorways should be accelerated as fast as possible. I recall that 40 years ago there was talk about the plan for an east-west motorway from Liverpool to Hull. Yet still today little more than 50 miles of that road has been constructed. But there is progress, which is contributing substantially to the changing character and the improvements in the environment, especially the

industrial environment, of the North-West.
I earnestly hope that the Government, and the leaders of industry and of local government in the North-West, will press for the renewal of existing towns rather than concentrating their minds and ours on green fields and leaving behind a pile of rubble in some of the older towns. In those towns, however old some may be, however drab some may have been in the past, there is the soul of the North-West—the people—and therein lies the finest and most rewarding investment which we in the North-West must cash in on and stimulate.
I urge not only my right hon. Friend and the Government but particularly those engaged in industry to press for and do all they can to promote further expansion of industrial training. One has only to compare the figures of unemployment with those of vacancies which have been announced to find that the one thing that stands out a mile is the extent to which those who are unemployed are to far too tragic a degree unskilled or semi-skilled.
It is in the best interests of the North-West and of industry in particular that skills should be stimulated and training intensified. I earnestly hope that when in perhaps a month or so we debate industrial training we will not underestimate the importance to industry of a skilled people. This is the one commodity, probably the only commodity, with which we can compete effectively in the world. The provision of Government training centres is important, but there is still a gap between what can be done by those training centres and what industry itself, through various agencies established and controlled by itself, can promote in the way of training.
Again declaring my interest, I must refer to the rather "stinking fish" kind of comment which only too frequently is made about the North-West and the cotton industry. I have indicated as clearly as I can that the cotton industry of yesterday is dead and that today we have an industry which has expressed to the Government and to the world its firm belief that Britain's future best interests lie with our entry into the Common Market. Of that there can be no doubt, despite the comments of supporters of the Labour Party.
But we must ask, and we have a right to expect, that the conditions under which we as an industry will be expected to trade shall be comparable with those facing other members of the Common Market. The greatest danger lies in the Government negotiating special exclusive non-similar trading arrangements for Britain and leaving the other nine countries of the Common Market operating on a formula which is completely different from that with which our industry has been faced.
In one respect the North-West is no different from the rest of the country. We depend upon a viable expanding economy of the country as a whole and we cannot expect, and have no right to receive, special treatment other than that which is appropriate to the best interests of promoting the economy of Britain as a whole.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The House should concentrate on the Motion on the Order Paper, and I hope that the Minister will reply to it. Briefly, the Motion says that the House is alarmed at the serious state of unemployment in the North-West. It names the steel industry, heavy engineering, cotton and coal mining. The Government's Amendment states that the House:
welcomes the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government to schedule the whole of the North-West Region as an Intermediate Area; recognises the extensive action already taken to produce greater economic growth and improvement in environmental conditions; and endorses the regional policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to spread national prosperity more evenly.
What has the Minister for Industrial Development done about the environmental conditions? Recently I had an Adjournment debate on that subject, but I have since seen no improvement in my constituency, where there is a chemical industry pouring waste chemicals into Sankey Brook which runs through the centre of the town, passing the ends of streets and schools, and out at the other end of the town. The smell from those chemicals is the worst that it is possible to experience. Only last Sunday I passed within several hundred yards of Sankey Brook on the leeward side, and the obnoxious smell coming from those gases was such that if any industrialist came

to survey the town with the object of setting up a new industry there the experience would be enough to turn job prospects away from my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spoke about development associations throughout the country which received Government grants towards the cost of administration and advertising. Time and time again we have been told that the North-West Development Association receives no such grant. Will the Minister tell us why such discrimination is practised and whether the Government will provide a similar grant to the North-West Development Association for the same purpose?
Going back to environmental pollution, did the Minister take note of the statement on the BBC that St. Helens was the worst spot in the world for cancer deaths? I did not hear that statement myself, but I have received fairly heavy correspondence from people who said they had heard it on a BBC programme. If that statement is true, it is time that the Government did something about the promise contained in the Amendment. I appeal to the Minister to do all in his power to take action on the important matter of environmental pollution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Eric S. Heffer), I hope the House will forgive me if I say that the brevity and excellence of the speeches this afternoon have been a model for all to follow.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I respectfully agree with your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the brevity and excellence of the speeches in this debate, and it applies to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
This has been a wide ranging debate. It throws up the fact that the North-West cannot be considered as experiencing the same sort of problems throughout its various divisions. The North-West is a diverse area and has many differing problems. For example, the problems of Merseyside are not identical to the problems of Manchester, nor are North-East Lancashire's problems the same as those in the South-East. Therefore, it is obvious that in a debate of this nature many of the speeches were bound to reflect the various constituency and area interests in the North-West as a whole.
Hon. Members opposite appear to believe that because the Opposition have tabled this Motion, and because many of my hon. Friends have rightly made critical speeches about Government policy, we have been seeking to denigrate the area and the people of the North-West. This is a ridiculous argument. We are concerned with the fact that over the past two years unemployment has grown to almost double the level at which it stood when the Labour Government went out of office. As a result many good North-Western people, highly trained skilled people, sound, working-class, warm-hearted folk, have been thrown out of work unnecessarily as a result of Government policy. This is all that my hon. Friends have been concerned to emphasise. They have not by any means said that the North-West is a bad place to live in or that it has a bad environment. It is our concern about these highly skilled workers being thrown out of work which hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to evade.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Industrial Development made an interesting but complacent speech. It appeared to give the impression that all problems in the North-West were on the verge of solution, that we were about to see an upsurge and a boom in industrial development, and that unemployment would rapidly decrease. My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to avoid the awkward issues which he knew would be raised in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman tried conveniently to forget the 14 months immediately following the publication of the Government's first White Paper on their regional policy. In that time the Secretary of State had been making various speeches saying that all this idea of helping the various regions by grants and by policies of the sort that had been pursued by the Government's predecessors would stop and that no longer would "lame ducks" be helped over stiles. Then we had this year's Budget proposals and the Industry Bill, both of which were a complete contradiction of what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had said in October, 1970. The Minister for Industrial Development wanted to forget that period which led to so much unemployment and misery amongst good

honest citizens in the North-West and others in the various cotton towns and big cities of the area.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though our unemployment problems were almost over. However, unemployment levels in the North-West and in the country as a whole are far too high. There cannot be any complacency about them.
In the course of the debate we heard references to the first phase of the closure of the Irlam steel works. It was said that it was not too bad after all since, although it had appeared at first that 1,900 jobs would be lost, it ended with only 280 unemployed. That is marvellous for anyone who is not among the 280. Anyone who is will not be pleased about it being only 280 who are unemployed. What is more, it is not only the Irlam steel works which has faced this redundancy problem. It is multiplied throughout the whole North-West Region. Firm after firm has been getting rid of 280 here and there. Anyone among that group who is thrown on to the streets is not very happy about the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman must take note of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). The Irlam steel works is in my right hon. Friend's constituency. I thought that he made a very important contribution to the debate. He stressed the need for the Minister to use Section 15 of the 1967 Act. That provision was put in the Act precisely to stop the sort of mini-development in the steel industry that we see taking place in various parts of the South-East. I hope that we shall get an answer from the Under-Secretary of State to this very important question.
We on this side of the House have been pressing for this debate for a long time. We have done so because of our feeling that it was vitally important that the problems of the North-West should be aired and discussed in this House, so that we might see the future plans required to deal with the problems that we face.
Are we in a position to talk about future planning for regional development when we have hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles the whole future of regional policy in relation to the European Economic Community?
The Under-Secretary brushed this question aside in a complacent manner. He said that it amounted to the West German Government asking for information. Why does one usually ask for information? I do not go round asking for information unless I want to build up a case. I want the information because I am preparing something for which the information will be used. The hon. Gentleman said they were only inquiring. What are they inquiring for? The very fact that they have inquired must make the businessmen in the North-West and other regional areas ask "Are we to continue with the grants? Are we to be allowed to have the kind of support that the Government are giving us at the moment?"
The hon. Gentleman is muttering away. Perhaps he will tell the House today, because he was not very forthcoming earlier, quite clearly and mildly that we may have a guarantee on three simple matters.
First, if—I stress the word "if"—we are subjected to any pressures from Common Market countries concerning the Industry Bill, will the Government say that under no circumstances will we change the Industry Bill in line with what these people are suggesting?
Secondly, if areas like the North-West, and Merseyside in particular, are included in the central area—if they are, the results would be totally disastrous for an area like Merseyside—will the Government resist Merseyside being included in the central area and in no circumstances succumb to pressure of that kind?
Thirdly, may we be assured that the Budget proposals which were again outlined in the debate—the Minister referred to the three measures—will not be touched and that the Government will stand up to the kind of pressures we are likely to get from the European Commission or any of the Member States in this regard?
The Under-Secretary can tell us that this will be the position on the Industry Bill, the central area and the Budget proposals. If he does not give assurances on those questions, industrialists and workers not only in the North-West but in other regions will be extremely worried about our future regional policy. This is what the whole argument has been about. This is what my right hon. and

hon. Friends who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on the European Communities Bill were arguing about. They have been saying that at a certain stage we would be subjected to Community law and our law would be subordinated to it. If that happens in relation to regional policy it will be disastrous for people in the regions. We have pressed for answers on these matters, and we are entitled to them. If the hon. Gentleman is able to give satisfactory answers he will reassure everyone.
The North-West Region is the oldest industrialised area in the world. It has enormous problems in its great cities and large towns with their derelict areas and blighted landscapes. Some people, particularly those living in the South-East, who never travel to our area have the impression that we still have blue woad on our faces, that we are Ancient Britons and that the whole of our landscape is nothing but a mass of derelict land, with coal tips, and so on.
That is just not so. There are beautiful areas in the North-West. We have some of the most beautiful countryside in the whole of Britain, and, incidentally, the best, most warmhearted, most generous and most highly skilled people in the land. It is important for everyone to understand that despite all our problems and adversities ours is an absolutely wonderful area.
The Hunt Committee said on page 47 of its report:
the legacy of the Industrial Revolution is apparent throughout the region. The industrial structure which in the nineteenth century was the foundation of its rapid growth in prosperity has proved a wasting inheritance in the twentieth.
As the Government's White Paper of March, 1972, said, the problem of the older industrial areas is deep-seated and long-term. Everyone accepts that, and I am not denying it. No one is suggesting that all the problems have been created by the Government's policies but—and this is the important "but"—it was recognised by the Labour Government in particular that we have these problems and they brought forward a whole series of proposals to deal with them. The present Government inherited from their predecessors regional policies which from October, 1970, to March, 1972, they chose to throw away quite deliberately


and with malice aforethought. In 1963 the unemployment rate in the development areas was more than double the rate in the rest of the country.
Although large amounts of financial and other aids were poured into Mersey-side, what happened was that we were merely running fast in order to stand still on the same spot, and the condemnation of the Government is that because they have stopped the aid provided by their predecessors and reversed their policy we no longer stood on the same spot but began to go backwards.
Let me give an example. We have been told that everything is pretty good and that we are advancing. Let us look at one sector of the Merseyside situation—the construction industry. In June, 1970, there were 5,873 unemployed workers in the construction industry. In June, 1971, the figures had gone up to 6,977. Now we are told that there is a boom in the building industry and that things are really moving. The present level is 9,024 workers unemployed in the construction industry on Merseyside.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) to the wooden schools in his constituency and in mine.

Mr. Marsden: And in mine.

Mr. Heffer: They are to be found also in the constituencies of other hon. Members from Liverpool.
In addition, there are still thousands of people on the waiting list for houses. We desperately need houses on Merseyside. Yet at this moment we have 9,024 workers unemployed. That is a disgrace, a scandal, a shame and an indictment of the present Government's policy. [An Hon. Member: "And they laugh."] Of course, one expects them to laugh. They have got nothing else to do except laugh to cheer themselves up in the situation that they have got themselves into. So I would not worry very much about them laughing.
I want to make another point arising from what I said about running fast to stand still. In 1959 the labour force in the Huyton-Bootle area was 485,000 and in 1968 it was 480,795. In other words, the workers had gone from the Huyton-Bootle area to the outskirts. In fact, in

the travel-to-work area the number had gone up to 814,000. So the labour force working on Merseyside had increased by 69,369 in 10 years. Yet the level of unemployment remained the same. We were running to stand still.
I will now omit many of the things that I wanted to say, but I should like to say something about the future. The Minister seemed to be absolutely terrified at some of the proposals in the Labour Party discussion Green Paper. He seemed to think that if these proposals are put forward particularly in relation to the multinational firms, growth and development will be halted, that we shall be faced with a very serious problem, that we shall not bring them in and so forth. We as a party are determined to redress the balance between the regions, and, in particular, we intend to stop the continual trend of employment opportunities to the South-East and to bring them into the North-West and other regions that require this employment.
Our Green Paper is based on two things—the 1971 Labour Party conference resolutions and the 1970 report on regional planning policy. We are making a number of serious proposals to deal with the problem of regional imbalance. We suggest that there should be four zones to replace the present development and intermediate areas, and that these should be designated as follows. (1) development areas, (2) intermediate areas, (3) neutral areas, (4) congested areas. Incentives should be provided over and above any regional investment grants. This would be in the form of a payroll subsidy, replacing the regional employment premium, and paid in respect of all employees, with the highest rates paid in the development zones.
We should have a congestion levy imposed on all employment in the congested zones. Also, we should look again closely at the application of the industrial development certificate policy and the question of office development permits, a matter raised by hon. Members on both sides tonight. Obviously, we want office employment—not office development, for there is plenty of that. For example, we have a great skyscraper of an office block in Liverpool, but there is no one working in it.
We shall develop public enterprises, doing it through a State holding company,


through the development of existing public enterprises, and by the creation of new public companies and publicly-owned industries. Also, we shall develop a new manpower policy.
We condemn this Government for their policies since they have been in office because they have created mass unemployment unnecessarily. We accept that they have now begun to move rapidly in the right direction, but we are not convinced that they are the people to carry through the right policy, for it is they who have caused the unemployment, and they have reversed their policy only under pressure from the situation and from the people.

9.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Many hon. Members have referred to the late Jack McCann, the former Member for Rochdale. I wish at the outset to associate all my colleagues with the warm tributes which have been paid to him, tributes all the more impressive because they come from both sides of the House.
The debate has been both good and, in a sense, curious: good because so many hon. Members have spoken—no fewer than 26, and I hope that they will understand if I am unable to reply to all their points in the time available—but curious in the sense that the Opposition Motion is peculiarly bitter in its language, yet the debate has for the most part been singularly calm.
I think that the Opposition's difficulties has been, first, that the Government are doing most of the things which they themselves ought to have done and wish that they had done. The measures which we have taken have been generally welcomed in their constituencies, and they have found it difficult to condemn the Government when their own constituents are rather in favour of our measures. From both sides of the House, moreover, there have been reports of signs of improvement—in Lancaster, in Rossendale, in Sale, all across the North-West there are welcome signs of improvement—so that it has been difficult for hon. Members opposite to sustain the bitter language of their own Motion.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did his best to get down to it with those who actually

drafted the Motion. I shall refer to only two points in his speech. First, I take the question of the German Government's inquiry about the regional measures being taken by my right hon. Friend. The facts are simple. The German Government made an inquiry of the Brussels Commission and they were sent a reply—no more and no less than that. The package of measures before the House stands. As and when, as I hope, those measures go through the House, they will be brought into effect, and no change can take place in any case until 1973.
I very much hope that the hon. Member for Walton was not trying by his questions to convince industrialists contemplating a move to the British regions that somehow they will not be able to obtain the benefit of the measures that my right hon. Friend is introducing, for if that were his purpose he would be doing nothing but damaging the confidence of those whose investment we urgently need to meet the problems about which he has been complaining in the House today.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give us the guarantee for which I have asked: that the Industry Bill will not be amended under pressure from the Common Market, that the Budget proposals will be accepted in full and that Merseyside and other towns will not be included in the central areas?

Mr. Griffiths: The only guarantee I can give the hon. Gentleman is that if the Industry Bill is passed by the House, it will be applied in this country in the manner that the House of Commons determines.
The hon. Gentleman spoke particularly about Liverpool. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in pursuance of his policy of developing a total approach to the problems of the cities, especially those urban areas with particular stress arising from industrial obsolescence and inadequate social services, announced his intention to select six towns, including three inner areas of the great metropolitan areas, for an intensive study for the purpose of working out ways and means of improving their total environment. I am glad to say that two


of those towns will be in the North-West. As my right hon. Friend has already announced, Oldham will be one. The other, I hope the hon. Member for Walton will be pleased to learn, will be Liverpool.
The details of this in-depth study, which I am sure the House will welcome, are now being worked out with Liverpool Corporation, on whose ready co-operation a great deal will depend. I am happy to say that, as a measure of his concern that the Liverpool study should be conducted at the highest level and with the maximum of local knowledge and concern for ordinary people, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, who of course represents the constituency of Crosby, to take the chair of the ministerial steering committee which will be in overall charge of the Liverpool survey. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased by that.
The picture that has been painted in the debate today, particularly by the hon. Gentleman, has been of the North-West in grievous decline. I say at once, and I think I carry hon. Members on both sides of the House with me in this, that the North-West is not an area that is sliding hopelessly into decline. Having myself grown up in South Lancashire, I can say with conviction that it is an area of great resource and great potential. In recent months it has had its difficulties, the seeds of which were sown during the time of the last Administration, but recently there have been welcome signs that the downward trend has been halted and that a positive upward surge is now emerging.
I want first to deal with unemployment. No one in the House will doubt that this is a deadly serious matter. All who have seen what unemployment can mean, as I have, know that it can gnaw away at individual dignity. But there is no doubt that the problem of unemployment in the North-West is a structural problem, that it is not the property of the present or the last Government but is the consequence of secular changes in the nature of the industry in the area. During the four years between 1966 and 1970 unemployment in the North-West doubled. It has gone up under the present Govern-

ment, too, and we all regret that. But we should recognise that by June this year unemployment in the North-West area had fallen by 11,000 compared with the corresponding April figures, and that fall is continuing, while the number of unfilled vacancies in the North-West is steadily rising.
I come next to industrial investment. Partly in response to the new measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, industrial confidence in the North-West is now picking up. At the end of last week more than 1,130 firm inquiries about the new financial measures were on record in the regional office in Manchester of the Department of Trade and Industry. These are not casual inquiries, but positive indications of interest.
Another important indicator of the interest being shown by industry in expansion is the number of applications for IDCs since mid-March this year. The number of approvals in the North-West has risen by one-third. The area of factory space is 100 per cent. higher, and, most important, the estimates by the applicants of the number of new jobs that will be created is nearly double the number of a year ago.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: We are all encouraged by the news of the inquiries now in the Department, but can the hon. Gentleman indicate what those inquiries mean in terms of jobs?

Mr. Griffiths: I have just said that the estimate is that the number of jobs will be more than doubled—[Hon. Members: "From what?"]—from those that were in the Department's office a year ago. Service industries are also proving responsive. Partly this is due to a welcome recognition by employers—[Interruption]. If the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wishes to intervene, perhaps she will rise and do so.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We are all asking what the figure is—not what the rate is, and whether it is being doubled, but from what to what? What is the figure?

Mr. Griffiths: I repeat that the number of inquiries in the Department of Trade and Industry's office is more than 1,130. The number of jobs that it is estimated


by those making the applications will arise is more than double the number that was estimated at this time last year.

Mrs. Castle: What is the figure, the number of jobs?

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Lady should realise that an inquiry from a firm seeking to invest in an area is an inquiry. Many things will happen before the factory is actually built. Those are now firm inquiries in the Department of Trade and Industry's office, and I very much hope that the jobs will be available.
The benefits which the assisted area status are bringing to the North-West region are not the only ones. With assisted area status, other Departments of Government bring in new jobs, too. For example, training is being increased from 20,000 to 100,000 trainees a year in the country as a whole, and I am glad that two of the new training centres will be in the North-West, one at Trafford Park and another in North Manchester.
I will turn soon to some of the work of my own Department in the North-West, but perhaps I should deal now with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). He was rightly concerned about Irlam, as are my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) and a number of other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman's concern was with the effect of the British Steel Corporation redundancies in his constituency. I have looked up the answer to the question about Section 15 of the Act. It is difficult in a short time to deal with all of that. The advice I have is that the Section 15 powers are not, as we see it, appropriate to be used in this matter. The crucial point is that the chairman and board of the British Steel Corporation must make their own decisions. There can be no independent operation by any nationalised industry if every detailed decision about management is transferred to Whitehall. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Newton, recalling his own speeches when the Bill went through this House, will accept that there cannot be effective management if every time a nationalised industry reaches a decision this House insists on walking all over it a second time.

Mr. Frederick Lee: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I should like to say one other thing. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not know, but my right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the Irlam Council together with members of the county council and hon. Members of this House, no doubt including the right hon. Gentleman. This meeting is to take place shortly and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if for that reason I say no more now, although it would be quite wrong if I were to raise his hopes in any way on that account.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I must deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about the social problems in his constituency. I was moved by what he said about the situation in the Broom Lane area of Levenshulme. I will certainly follow up his suggestion and get in touch with the chairman of British Rail to see whether any improvement can be effected. Similarly with the subject of playgrounds, I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks.
I turn now to the work of the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked about the strategic plan for the North-West which was jointly commissioned by the Government, the economic planning council and the local authorities in the region. It is being prepared by a professional team working from Salford. Work started in July, 1971, following a launching meeting attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad to say that the work is up to schedule and it will be published, we hope, in July, 1973. Once it is available it will give the North-West an opportunity to work out some if not all the answers to its problems and will show how the available resources can best be deployed to meet particular problems. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the plan is up to schedule and we hope to publish it when it becomes available.
As for the infrastructure in the North-West Region, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it now has one of the finest road systems in the country. There


are the M6, the M62 across the Pennines, the new link from the centre of Liverpool via the new Mersey Tunnel to North Wales, the M56, the M55, which shortly will be started to link up Preston with Blackpool, and looking further ahead we have it in mind to provide a Manchester-Sheffield motorway, a Calder Valley highway linking North-East Lancashire to the M6. In addition, in the two metropolitan areas of Lancashire, the Government have made provision for additional principal roads at a cost of more than £200 million. I think it will be accepted that the North-West now has one of the finest road systems in Europe.
On the railways there has been the electrification of the west coast main line to Glasgow at a cost of £55 million; there has been the £40 million investment in the new Seaforth docks and the whole range of environmental policies which my right hon. Friend has introduced.
The Motion speaks of "reactionary policies". The House will agree that it is in no way reactionary that we should have increased the rate of slum clearance to the highest on record. We are now introducing 75 per cent. grants so that there will be no reason why local authorities should not finally clear, by improvement or replacement, the whole of the slums of the North-West by the end of the present decade. The same is true of home improvement grants. The extension of intermediate area status means an automatic increase from 50 per cent. to75 per cent. in the grants for these improvements. As a result, the amount of work on home improvements, most of it labour-intensive, that is currently going on in State-assisted home improvements in the North-West is now more than three times greater than it was in 1969–70 and the level is going up sharply.
I wish to say a few words about environmental pollution. There is no doubt that the condition of the rivers in the North-West, to which the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) referred, is not good enough. I know something of that problem because as a child I grew up in the area and there are etched on my memory recollections of the slag heaps and collieries and smoke-laden air throughout South Lancashire. Looking back, I realise that in those days one did not regard eyesores as being in any way

abnormal. They seemed to be part of the natural order of things which one accepted. But we accept them no longer, for we have all become sensitised to the quality of our environment. That is why I derive so much satisfaction from the policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is now seeking to clean up the environment of the North-West in a fashion and at a speed which has never happened before.
Clean air is one example. Fifty-five per cent. of the so-called black areas of the North-West is now subject to smoke control orders in respect of about 1 million premises, and we have been able to say to all local authorities "Go full steam ahead". Seventy-two North-West authorities have brought forward, at great cost, derelict land schemes covering 2,600 acres. The derelict land clearance programme is going forward rapidly.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the things in the long list which he has given were either done orinitiated during our period of office?

Mr. Griffiths: The improvement grants are three times greater. Operation Eyesore, which was never heard of when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, is now proceeding at a rapid rate, and all over Lancashire eyesores are being removed. The great River Mersey, which remained dirty throughout the period of office of the hon. Gentleman's party, is now being cleaned, and it will be clean within 10 years.
Having looked at all these problems I have asked myself, in response to the Motion, what right hon. and hon. Members opposite would do if they should be in office. I have looked up the answer in the paper which the hon. Gentleman used in his speech. I find that the Opposition have two proposals to make. The first is that multi-national companies investing in this country would be subject to the appointment of directors by hon. Members opposite who would not only be made directors of the subsidiaries in this country but would be required to be directors on the main boards of those companies in their own countries. We used to talk of "jobs for the boys". This is a question of jobs for the boys on an international scale which has rarely been


seen. I can well imagine a situation in which the hon. Member for Walton was on the board of General Motors—and that would put General Motors in deep difficulty—and the hon. Member for Ardwick was a member of the board of, say, United Corn Products. The Opposition's suggestion for improving the situation in the North-West can do nothing better but deter foreign investment in this country.
The other gem in the Opposition's document is that May-Day would be made a statutory national holiday. I am informed by one of my hon. Friends that it is to be known as "St. Wedgie's Day".
The Motion seeks to condemn the Government. I prefer to rely on someone

who has been quoted with deep respect by hon. Members on both sides of the House; namely, the head of the North West Development Association. On 2nd June this year, following the measures announced by my right hon. Friend, he said:
The gloom of the past year seems to be giving way to an atmosphere of confidence in the future. Broadly speaking, the industrial development policies now being applied in the North-West are much more appropriate to the problems and the needs than they have ever been in the past.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 259.

Division No. 300.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Havers, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)
Hawkins, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
Hicks, Robert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dean, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebene)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holt, Miss Mary


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Batsford, Brian
Dykes, Hugh
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hunt, John


Benyon, W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
James, David


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Body, Richard
Fidler, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bowden, Andrew
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bray, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brewis, John
Foster, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kimball, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kinsey, J. R.


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Antony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhew, Victor
Lamont, Norman


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gorst, John 
Lane, David


Carilsle, Mark
Gower, Raymond
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Gray, Hamish
Le Marchant, Spencer


Channon, Paul
Green, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chapman, Sydney
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Longden, Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grylls, Michael
Loveridge, John


Churchill, W. S.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Luce, R. N.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
MacArthur, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Hall. John (Wycombe)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cooke, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McLaren, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan. Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)


Cooper, A. E.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Costain. A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Madel, David


Critchley, Julian
Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil


Crouch, David

Mather, Carol




Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mawby, Ray
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Moate, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Money, Ernie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridsdale, Julian
Tilney, John


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Trew, Peter


More. Jasper
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morrison, Charles
Royle, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mudd, David
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Murton, Oscar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Waddington, David


Neave, Alrey
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walder, David (Clilheroe)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Normanton, Tom
Sharples, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Onslow, Cranley
Simeons, Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wilkinson John


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Soref, Harold
Winterton, Nicholas


Parkinson, Cecil
Speed, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Peel, John
Spence, John
Wood. Rt. Hn. Richard


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor
Worsley, Marcus


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stokes, John
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Wetherill


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom



Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter



NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Golding, John


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gourlay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Baxter, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Harper, Joseph


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Horam, John


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Evans, Fred
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson,Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cooks, Michael, (Bristol. S.)
Forrester, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(Wham's.)


Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gilbert, Dr. John
Judd, Frank


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Kaufman, Gerald







Kelley, Richard
Molloy, William
Sillars, James


Kerr, Russell
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Kinnock, Neil
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Lamborn, harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Latham, Arthur
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lawson, George
Oakes, Gordon
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lestor, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Lewis, Arthur (W.Ham, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lipton, Marcus
Paget, R. T.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Palmer, Arthur
Tinn, James


Loughlin, Charles
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tomney, Frank


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Torney, Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tuck, Raphael


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, T. W.


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


McCartney, Hugh
Fentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


McGuire, Michael
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Prescott. John
Wallace, George


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, William (Rugby)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Probert, Arthur
Well beloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Marquand, David
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn Frederick


Marsden, F.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams. Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mayhew, Christopher
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, John
Sandelson, Neville
Woof, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Milne, Edward
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)



Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 259.

Division No. 301.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James


Alison, Michael (Barkslon Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dean, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Dixon, Piers


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey
Burden, F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Dykes, Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Channon, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Bell, Ronald
Chapman, Sydney
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Biggs;-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Body, Richard
Coombs, Derek
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boscawen, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cormack, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Critchley, Julian
Fowler, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Galbraith Hn. T. G.


Brooklebank-Fowler, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry





Gardner, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Luce, R. N.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gorst, John
MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Gower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Simeons, Charles


Grieve, Percy
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Soref, Harold


Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stainton, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire. W)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hastings, Stephen
Money, Ernle
Stokes, John


Havers, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tebbit, Norman


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles
Temple, John M.


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tilney, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John
Trew, Peter


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Parkinson, Cecil
Waddington, David


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peel, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walkers, Dennis


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell. Miss J. M.
Wilkinson, John


Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden. Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Worsley, Marcus


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lambton, Lord
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. Bernard Weatherill


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)



Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Clark David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Conlan, Bernard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)







Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Deaking, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roper, John


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Ross. Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Strang, Gavin


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tomney, Frank


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Torney, Tom


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Weitzman, David


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Irvine, Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paget, R. T.



Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government to schedule the whole of the North-West Region as an

Intermediate Area; recognises the extensive action already taken to produce greater economic growth and improvement in environmental conditions; and endorses the regional policies of Her Majesty's Government designed to spread national prosperity more evenly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,

That the Sri Lanka Republic Bill [Lords], the Field Monuments Bill [Lords], the Children Bill [Lords] and the British Library Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[The Prime Minister.]

SRI LANKA REPUBLIC BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

10.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 22nd May Ceylon adopted a new constitution as the Republic of Sri Lanka within the Commonwealth. As the House will know, when a Commonwealth country makes a change from a monarchical to a republican constitution it is necessary to introduce legislation in the United Kingdom to take account of the change.
The present Bill, which is short and uncontroversial, is drafted on the lines of previous legislation in similar cases, and provides that the law of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man existing on 22nd May so far as it operated in relation to Ceylon, and to persons and things belonging to or connected with Ceylon, is not affected by the fact that Ceylon is now the Republic of Sri Lanka.
In so far as the law of Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom consists of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to them, and of Orders in Council extending such Acts to them, the Bill will have the same effect on their law. One of the provisions of the Bill substitutes the name "Sri Lanka" wherever existing Acts of Parliament and instruments made under them refer to Ceylon by name.
As is customary, the Government of Sri Lanka has asked other Commonwealth Governments to agree that Sri Lanka may remain a member of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding her adoption of a republican constitution. All Common-

wealth Governments have welcomed this decision. There is, therefore, no change in the Commonwealth link. The change to republican status, which is now the form of government of a number of Commonwealth countries, does not, of course, affect the status of Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, or the regard which all the peoples of the Commonwealth have for Her Majesty.
The former Governor-General of Ceylon, Mr. William Gopallawa, is the first President of the Republic of Sri Lanka. Mrs. Bandaranaike continues as Prime Minister.
Britain and the new republic share a long, close and friendly history. British people have for more than 150 years served the country and people of Ceylon and, despite economic difficulties and political changes, Britain is still Sri Lanka's largest trading partner and best customer. Those who have visited that beautiful island have many affectionate memories of it.
Recently Ceylon has had to face the economic and political difficulties common to many developing countries where the expectations of the people have risen more quickly than the means to fulfil them. In the last three years we have given almost £16 million of aid to Ceylon to help her to surmount these difficulties.
We have also made it clear to Mrs. Bandaranaike that we want to continue trading and working in Sri Lanka as we have done for so many years. In return we ask only that our businessmen and our interests there should be treated fairly and generously. Those who have given much to the country are entitled to expect no less.
Sri Lanka is a fully independent country, and has been so ever since 1948. Its laws, customs and policies are its own. It is not for us or for any other country to try to dictate to its people or to lecture them on how they should run their own lives. We can only, in friendship and respect, wish them well in their new status, and welcome their decision to remain within the Commonwealth.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I associate right hon. and hon. Members


on this side of the House with some of the sentiments expressed by the Undersecretary. He is right when he says that the form of the Bill follows many others which have passed through this House in the last decade or so. In form, all that the Bill does is to make provision so as to change the name Ceylon within the Commonwealth to Sri Lanka and to change its system of government from a monarchical to a republican one.
While agreeing in general terms with the Under-Secretary, I should like to raise three specific points with him. First, have the Government yet received from the new Government of Sri Lanka any indication whether appeals to the Privy Council are to be maintained? In common with many other republics now within the Commonwealth, probably the right of appeal to the Privy Council will tend to lapse.
The second point relates to aid. Can the hon. Gentleman give as many hopeful indications as his noble Friend did in another place when winding up the brief debate on the Second Reading there? I should like an indication from him about the kind of aid envisaged for the new Sri Lanka in years to come and the closeness with which we hope to regard economic development there.
Thirdly, though I agree that it is not for us to lecture any independent country, especially one in the Commonwealth, the hon. Gentleman will know that in another place serious doubts were expressed by a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, by Lord Avebury from the Liberal benches, and by Lord Brockway from the Labour benches about the operation in Sri Lanka of the Criminal Justice Commissions Act.
The House knows that there were civil disobediences and disturbances in Ceylon, as it then was, last year. As a result, a considerable number of people were detained. Under the new Act which has recently been passed in Sri Lanka, the Criminal Justice Commissions Act, the way in which those who have been detained are to appear before a criminal commission is, to say the least, somewhat disturbing to a British jurist and lawyer. I understand that the commission which has been set up under the Act has very large powers indeed. It can carry out investigations and punish any person who

comes before it, even though he may not have been charged with a criminal offence. Perhaps in some ways one of the most distressing features of the Act is that persons who are required to appear before the commission have no knowledge in advance whether they are needed as witnesses against somebody else or are to appear as defendants in their own right to answer charges notice of which has not been given to them. They have no right to recall witnesses or to re-examine them if their appearance before the commission is the result of evidence which has been given prior to the summons being served upon them.
It is unnecessary for me to run through the provisions of the Act. Suffice to say that they are draconian indeed and extremely disturbing to anyone who has been brought up in a British system of jurisprudence.
The Minister will know that in another place noble Lords who took part in the debate and the noble Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe urged that, with the utmost friendliness, we should make representations to the new Government of Sri Lanka over the concern felt by many people in this country, particularly lawyers and jurists, about the Act and its operation. What has been the result of such representations?
Finally, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish the new Republic of SriLanka well. We welcome her within the Commonwealth in the status which she has now chosen. We hope relations between Great Britain and the new republic will be as close in future as they have been in the past.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As has been said from both sides of the House, the Bill is in what is almost common form. There have been a considerable number of such Bills over the last quarter of a century. Nevertheless, there has not been one in recent months, and those months have seen important events, political and probably juridical, in the Commonwealth. So the Bill gains a special and timely interest and is of some legal and constitutional importance for that reason. It also has a bearing on other controversies which are of direct practical importance to this country.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was not quite accurate in saying that the only effect of the Bill was to write into our law "Sri Lanka" wherever hitherto "Ceylon" occurred; its effect is very much more important than that.
If the Bill were not passed, then, by reason of the change in status of Ceylon—by reason of it becoming a republic—the references in the law of this country to Ceylon either would or might cease to have effect altogether or have a different effect from that which they have now. It is important that that should be clearly understood. It is the status, and the change of status, which would affect the application and meaning of the law of this country.
It is often asserted, but wrongly, that events occurring outside this country and the decisions of authorities external to it cannot change the effect of the law in the United Kingdom. Indeed, that is wrong. This Bill is a proof of it; for the decision of the independent legislature of Ceylon to change its status—a decision and an act in which this Parliament had, and, indeed, could have, no part—nevertheless would of itself, unless we took other action, alter the application of the law of this country inside this country. To put it once again another way, this is not a Bill which in any way recognises the change of status which has taken place. This is a Bill which prevents from following the consequences which otherwise would follow in the law of this country from that change of status.
The decision of the new republic that it would like to remain part of the Commonwealth requires a Bill of this sort in order that, for example, the status of the new republic's citizens in this country's law should remain unaltered and that they should in other respects with which we are all familiar remain a Commonwealth country. I ask the House to be clear that, apart from a positive act on the part of this House, the action of Ceylon in becoming a republic would, or might, take that country out of the application of those parts of the law of this country which are concerned with Sri Lanka and with the citizens of Sri Lanka.
One of the relevant provisions—I assume this to be so until my hon. Friend

the Under-Secretary of State rises to assure the House that I am mistaken—is Section 1 (3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. The word "Ceylon" appears in the Section, and when the Bill is passed the word "Ceylon" will be taken to have been replaced by the words "Sri Lanka." That is the Section which lists countries whose citizens are, by virtue of the citizenship of those countries, British subjects or, in the alternative term, Commonwealth citizens. That, then, is one of the provisions which, but for this positive act of the legislature of this country, would either have ceased to have effect, or would have had a different effect.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I cannot help having this fact graven upon my mind by a personal experience when the 1948 Act was still a Bill. I was not at that time a Member of the House, but it was my function to brief Members of Her Majesty's then Opposition, and the British Nationality Bill was one of the Bills on which it fell to me to provide such briefing as I was capable of.
In due course—for that Bill started in this House and went to another place—I went to brief, if that be not altogether—I am sure it was—too presumptuous an expression, the noble and learned Lord, the Viscount Simon, a former Lord Chancellor and a great lawyer. I ventured to suggest to his Lordship that one of the effects and, I apprehended, one of the intended consequences of the British Nationality Bill, one of the reasons why it was drawn as it was, one of the reasons why British citizenship henceforward was made to depend upon the citizenship of a listed country in Section 1(3), was none other than to make it possible for parts of the Commonwealth to become republics without ceasing to be parts of the Commonwealth.
Lord Simon told me at once that I was mistaken. He happened to choose as an example another of the countries specified in subsection (3); but it might equally have been Ceylon. He said, "My boy, I can assure you that, if Ceylon were to become a republic, no court of law would say that Ceylon then meant the same as Ceylon in Clause 1(3) of the Bill."
I accepted, of course, the legal authority of Lord Simon, though with considerable doubts, for it seemed to me that, indeed, one of the underlying objects of the British Nationality Act, 1948—to which,


you will observe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill at present before the House will in due course come to apply—was to make it possible to have republics within the Commonwealth.
The 1948 Act was passed; and scarcely had it reached the Statute Book when India became a republic. Thereupon it appeared that by a happy conjuncture both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my humble self had been right in our respective ways. I had been, as it happened, right as to the political effect and I presume intended effect of the legislation. But the noble and learned Lord had been right when he said that "Ceylon" before becoming a republic did not in law mean the same in a British Statute as "Ceylon" after becoming a republic, and that, if we wanted it to be the same, we had to pass an Act to say so. In fact, we did pass an Act, the India (Consequential Provision) Act, 1949.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court is following me and I trust that he will follow me to the end.

Mr. Richard: May I raise two points with the right hon. Gentleman? He is absolutely right. The Statute is clearly necessary in order to achieve this purpose. But why should the entry of people of Ceylon into this country be changed because the status of Ceylon has now been changed? Why should it make a difference to the way in which this country regards anybody from Ceylon who might or might not wish to come to this country? Why should such a person be treated differently from a citizen from India or Pakistan? The right hon. Gentleman has obviously done a great deal of research into this topic. Would he say what is the scope of the problem with which we are dealing? Can he say what are the numbers of Singhalese or Sri Lankan immigrants to the United Kingdom every year?

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find out soon enough what is the purport of the argument which I am putting before the House and which he is so closely and courteously following.

Mr. Richard: Then answer me.

Mr. Powell: I will come to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman, if, indeed, he finds that the reply does satisfy him.
It is probable that in the law of this country—and this legislature has assumed in the past that it would be so—the word "Ceylon' in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948 would not mean the Republic of Sri Lanka. The consequence of that would, of course, be that the citizens of Sri Lanka would cease to be Commonwealth citizens or British subjects. In order to continue that status to them, it is necessary for a specific Act to be passed by this House—not vice versa. It is not necessary for this House to pass an Act to say that they had ceased to be Commonwealth citizens. They had ceased to be Commonwealth citizens unless Parliament of its own accord enacts otherwise, as it does in this Bill.
It is a big change for a Commonwealth country to cease to be a monarchy and to become a republic, albeit seeking, as a republic, to remain part of the Commonwealth as so many other countries have done. But that is a negligible change compared with the change of status which is conveyed by declaring that one has ceased to be part of the Commonwealth altogether. Now there is a country, of which the name is mentioned in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, which has changed in two respects in the past six months. It has changed geographically, because it has been torn in two and one half has been separated from the other. Hon. Members will guess that I refer to Pakistan. Even physically and geographically, therefore, if there were no other change, it is highly dubious whether what is Pakistan in July, 1972 equals "Pakistan" in Section 1(3) of the Act.
But another change in status has taken place. By the volition of Pakistan—exactly as Ceylon's change in status has taken place by the volition of the Republic of Sri Lanka—Pakistan has declared itself to be no longer part of the Commonwealth; it has said not merely that it is a republic, a crowned republic—we have them now in the Commonwealth—but that it is not part of the Commonwealth at all, that it does not wish to be so, and is not so. Such an act, such a decision, such a change of status requires no co-operation on the


part of this House, any more than it required co-operation on the part of the House for Ceylon to become the Republic of Sri Lanka.
The consequence—and we are proving it by this Bill—is that the citizens of Pakistan have in the law of this country until this House provides otherwise, ceased to be Commonwealth citizens, alias British subjects. This is true whether they are in Timbuctoo or in Broadstairs—[Interruption.] There could be one in Broad stairs, I suppose, in transit, as the hon. Member says.
So we have acknowledged a very important fact, a fact which for six months the Home Office has been engaged in denying: that, quite apart from the convulsion which changed the political geography of Pakistan, the action of Pakistan in declaring itself to be outside the Commonwealth has had the effect, without any intervention on the part of this House, that the citizens of Pakistan anywhere in the world are, in the law of this country, no longer Commonwealth citizens or British subjects, and that unless Parliament otherwise provides all the consequences of that must follow.
Such is the direct present relevance of the Bill—[Interruption.] Well, it is the logical implication, the logical consequence, the logical conclusion as to the law of this country which is to be derived from this Bill. [Interruption.] May I help the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court then? The Bill would not be necessary if the presence of the words "Ceylon" or "Pakistan" in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act in itself continued the status of Commonwealth citizens in this country. The Bill would not be necessary if an Act of Parliament were not required to preserve the status of the citizens of a Commonwealth country on that country's altering its status. By the form of the Bill we declare what has in fact happened to the citizens of Pakistan in the law of this country as a result of the change of status of Pakistan. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman can make his speech.

Mr. Richard: Not in the least. The right hon. Gentleman has offered me his help; I am asking for it. He is postulating that a British court would decide that Pakistan, in the context of the British Nationality Act, meant something

different from what it meant in 1948. I ask him the question which I asked him before: why should Sri Lankan citizens be treated differently from Singalese citizens before or from Indian citizens now, or indeed, if it helps the right hon. Gentleman, from old Pakistan citizens before Bangladesh was created? Secondly—and again I ask for the right hon. Gentleman's help—what is the scope of the problem? How many immigrants come to this country from Sri Lanka?

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that I am opposing the Bill. I am not. It is because of this Bill that the status of the citizens of Sri Lanka will remain unchanged, will remain the same as that of the citizens of India and as the former status of the citizens of Pakistan. That is the very point.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I do not wish to enter into the discussion between the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) about the peculiar results of this Bill in relation to immigration. But I should like to ask why this Bill has been introduced. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has a point which could be applied in another way.
In 1931 we passed the Statute of Westminster and we said in respect of all dominions under the British Crown—I use the word "dominions" in the sense of self-governing dominions—that this House could not legislate for them except at their request and with their consent. When such legislation has been passed—on amending the British North America Act, on the Abdication and in other cases—the request of dominions and their consent have been rehearsed in the preamble to the Act. That is not so in this Bill.
I therefore presume that that Act does not apply to Ceylon. But that is odd, because Clause 1(2) provides, in a long and complicated subsection,
…this section applies to law of
various places, such as the Channel Islands,
and…to law of any other country or territory to which that enactment…",


namely, the one being amended by this Bill,
extends".
Presumably, for example, it applies to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1898, which was passed long before the Statute of Westminster in 1931. I presume that it applies to that in so far as that earlier legislation applied to Ceylon. But if it is amending law which applies in Ceylon and it says "any other country", not "any other territory"—and I accept that "territory" has a specific meaning—it would seem to be in breach of the Statute of Westminster unless it was requested by the Government of Ceylon and they consented to it. Formerly it was usual to rehearse that fact in the preamble to the Bill.
The Minister said that the Bill was in form the same as other similar Bills. If that is so, when was it that we dropped the practice of rehearsing the consent of other dominions in such a Bill? Perhaps his answer would be that this does not apply to Ceylon, in which case the Statute of West minister does not apply to it. Therefore, what is the point of it?
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has based his case, perhaps correctly—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court says that he is absolutely correct—on the belief that if the State, as it is in international law, of Ceylon changes its name to Sri Lanka, then by some mysterious process every reference to it in English law ceases to have effect unless, in an English Statute, the word "Ceylon" is replaced by "Sri Lanka". If the law of England were that restrictive I should be surprised. I should have thought the courts would hold that any legislation applying to a sovereign State would still apply even if the State changed its name, provided that it was recognised by the United Kingdom.
If that is not so, why do we do this individually? Why do not we pass one Act of Parliament which deals with this extraordinary bit of semantics or pedantry in the law, if that is what it is, once and for all, so that when a member of the Commonwealth changes its name or modestly changes its status, then anything that applied to it continues to apply to it in law? Why go through all the paraphernalia of wasting the time of the

House of Commons by having to introduce a separate Bill every time somebody wants to change a name?
There used to be a situation when an individual could not change his name or become a naturalised citizen unless he brought a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Such procedure also applied to divorce at one time, but eventually Parliament introduced Measures to deal with those circumstances. If we could do that, why not do it once and for all for any country in the Commonwealth that wishes to change its name or status? Why waste our time by separate legislation on each occasion?

10.57 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: Not being a lawyer, I do not want to go into all the details of the situation. However, why is it necessary to refer to the West Indies Act, 1967, in regard to the Bill? There seems to be some confusion as to the legislative context of the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has mentioned Pakistan, I would point out that Pakistan has recently passed a law to say that Pakistanis can retain Pakistan nationality and also remain British.

Mr. Powell: Who says this?

Dame Joan Vickers: Such a law has recently been passed in Pakistan. Is this possible for every country in the Commonwealth? Can they do this whether or not they opt out of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Powell: Surely a foreign country or any other country cannot by its legislation state what is to be the law of this country.

Dame Joan Vickers: A law has been passed. I do not say that it will hold in this country. The law makes life even more difficult for the individuals concerned, regardless of their nationality. That is why I brought up this matter.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred to the Statute of Westminster, which is an important point, but there is no need to consider it in regard to the Bill.

Mr. English: The hon. Lady may well be right. However, if she is not and the Statute of Westminster applies, then we are passing the Bill illegally.

Dame Joan Vickers: Surely the Bill would not have been brought before the House without it being known whether it is legal. If that were not so, the time of the House would be wasted. The Bill has already been to another place which has good legal advice. It would not have been passed to us un-amended if it had been thought that it was incorrect or had been put forward in an incorrect manner.
I am proud of the Commonwealth. I appreciate that we cannot be entirely satisfied about the present situation of internees in Ceylon, but we have our own troubles in Ulster and we cannot be too critical of other countries. However, I welcome the fact that countries remain within the Commonwealth because that contributes to the peace of the world.
One of my reasons for supporting British entry into the European Economic Community is my belief that we shall have a more peaceful Europe thereby and that we shall be an excellent link between Europe and the Commonwealth. Right hon. and hon. Members have been rather critical so far in the debate, but we should remember the good service which Ceylon rendered during the war, when it was a very good base. Thousands of people would have died had it not been for Ceylon's help, particularly our ex-prisoners of war on their release from Japanese camps.
Ceylon is a remarkable island in many ways. It has survived a tremendous number of invasions and has retained its character throughout. Indeed, the character of the people is fine. I will not go into the history of the island but we should, for example, remember, as no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) does, how useful the base at Trincomalee was to the Royal Navy during the war. Ceylon is also remarkable for its wild life and I hope that it will continue to conserve the unique animals it has.
It is important that when we are in the EEC Ceylon's exports should be protected. Ceylon exports rice, tea,

rubber and coconuts, and this trade is of great importance to it. Unlike other countries, Ceylon's agriculture is made up mostly of smallholders, which has made her people more independent-minded.
As I said, Ceylon has survived many invasions, going back to 1017. All those who have been there will remember the beauties of the old capital of Anuradhapura and the later capital of Polonuarawar. Ceylon has also had a great many constitutions and on the whole they have been thought out rather well. The constitution of 1833 was followed by another in 1910 and then the Donoughmore constitution in 1931. Ceylon was also the first non-white country of the British Empire to become independent, in 1948.
The people of Ceylon have thus had considerable experience in running their own country and have taken the trouble as a whole to abide by the constitution of the day. I think that we should congratulate Mrs. Bandaranaike, who was the first woman Prime Minister in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope the hon. Lady will not stray too wide of the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers: I mentioned her because she happens to head the Government.
I hope that the Bill will be passed and that Ceylon will remain a member of the Commonwealth, retaining its personality under its new name. I wish the people of Ceylon a happy future.

11.5 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Speeches at this time should not last for more than three minutes and mine will last for two.
I had not intended to intervene except that this is a slightly nostalgic occasion because in the long association between this country and Ceylon, as it used to be, the Royal Navy has been much in the front rank and in Admiralty House in Trincomalee, which my hon. and fair Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned just now, there is a name board carrying the names of 100 admirals who were Commanders in Chief, East Indies, based in Trincomalee. Many of them


came to sticky ends, dying of fever or being killed at sea.. I should like to pay tribute to the generosity of the Sri Lankanese Government, as I should now call it, that in their bonfire of independence they have not torn down the name board, but that it is still there and that the base, including the naval base, is still being kept up.
I hope that the happy relations between Britain and Ceylon will continue in the same spirit of generosity. I ask my hon. Friend, as an important point, to assure the House that the Government understand the importance of protecting trade between Britain and Sri Lanka, which in future will be just as important as in the past. We cannot opt out of pro-protecting our overseas trade in the Indian Ocean or anywhere else.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few remarks to end this valuable and interesting debate.
The remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) were quite rightly made in tribute to the Royal Navy's links with Ceylon over many years and are welcome to hon. Gentlemen on both sides.
I found the discussion this evening interesting. It underlines the great concern felt by this House for our relations with what was called Ceylon and is now Sri Lanka. I shall try to answer all the points made but it is getting late and there is a lot more business to do, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer all in detail but follow up those points which I do not answer as soon as possible tomorrow.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked me three questions. The first was about appeals to the Privy Council. The answer is that Ceylon set up her own Court of Appeal and abolished appeals to the Privy Council in the Court of Appeal (Ceylon) Act, 1971, which came into effect on 15th November, 1971 and it has not therefore been necessary to make reference in the Bill to appeals to the Privy Council.
He also asked about aid. The Sri Lankanese Government are aware that we wish to support them in taking the necessary steps to put right their financial

situation and they are also aware of the need to maintain business confidence abroad. At a recent aid group meeting in Paris on 24th May, we made no pledges of new aid, but we are in close touch with the Sri Lanka Government.
The third question was about the Criminal Justice Commission Act, and, as I suspect he expected, my reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman will be short and not helpful to him. Sri Lanka is a sovereign independent State and its laws must be its own concern. I have no doubt that the Sri Lanka Government will read this debate in due course and will note the views expressed in the House.
I turn to the carefully argued speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I thank him for his courtesy in informing me of the matter which he would raise and which he raised with the great clarity we have all come to expect from him. He raised the matter of the British Nationality Act, 1948, of which, because of my right hon. Friend's courtesy, I obtained a somewhat yellowing copy from the Library before coming to the House.
I confirm that the reference to Ceylon in Section 1(3) of the 1948 Act will, as with all other Acts passed before 22nd May, 1972, be covered by the Bill. Citizens of Sri Lanka will remain British subjects. If they apply to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration, Section 1(3) provides that they may be required in certain circumstances, to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
My right hon. Friend said that a Bill of this kind has not been brought forward for some time, but as recently as December, 1971 I myself brought forward the Sierra Leone Republic Bill, a Bill very similar to this but which did not seem to arouse as much interest. This does not affect my right hon. Friend's argument, but it should be known as a fact.
Again, there was the comment, perhaps not stated but which might have been felt by some, contained in the question, why had not the Government taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to stop immigration from Sri Lanka? The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court asked how many people had come from Ceylon to the United Kingdom in recent years. Just for the record I say that suitably qualified immigrants may


be accepted against the overall Commonwealth quota of 2,250 per year, and that in 1971, the latest year for which figures are available, 185 Ceylonese were accepted by immigration. They are mostly skilled people and have created no problem. The Government do not consider it appropriate to deal with immigration policy in a piecemeal way, and it is well known that we rest our immigration policy on the 1971 Act.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his careful reply. Since he has referred to immigration, I might say that it would seem to me to be quite impossible to treat one Commonwealth country which has become a republic differently in this respect from any other Commonwealth country which has become a republic. Such an idea was not in my mind, and it would indeed have run contrary to the theme of my argument. But I am obliged to my hon. Friend for confirming that the reference to Ceylon in Section 1(3) of the 1948 Act is one of the places on which the Bill bites; in other words, it is one of the places where our law would have been different as a result of the change of status but for this legislation.

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) advanced very powerful legal arguments, and I do not pretend to be a lawyer. Basically, he asked: why have a separate Bill? I think that he felt that it would be much better to have a blanket, package Bill which would cover all countries as they wished to turn themselves, perhaps, from monarchies to republics. To do this would not be right. By tradition we have always had separate legislation. That is the least we can do to bring our laws into line when a country changes its form or constitution, and I would not wish to leave that traditional posture. I do not think that the time of the House is wasted, though perhaps I am talking too long now. We have had a valuable debate, and it is right and proper that we should try to have a separate discussion on each country. We do not know whether there will be any more who wish to change from monarchies into republics, but if there are, it is at least courteous for us

to have a separate Bill. I hope that that tradition will be continued.

Mr. English: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a matter of opinion whether we should have one Bill, or a series of Bills to deal with each separate occasion. I made another point, which is more important. Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance either that the Bill does not apply to Ceylon or, if it does, that Ceylon, or Sri Lanka as it now is, has requested and consented to it in the form in which it is presented to us as required by the Statute of Westminster?

Mr. Royle: I understood the point and I was just coming to it. The Bill is to bring our law into line. The intention of the Bill, and why it is now before us, is to bring into line everything that we do in this country which is connected with Ceylon as she was and Sri Lanka as she is now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised an important point about what exactly Clause 1(5) does and why it is in the Bill. The answer is that the West Indies Act, 1967 provides that an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament only extends to an associated State as part of its law in certain specified circumstances. The British Nationality Act, 1948, is part of the law of the associated States and is affected by Clause 1(3). The declaration in this subsection is necessary to secure that Clause 1(3) extends to the associated States.
The other point raised by my hon. Friend concerned the question of Sri Lanka and the European Economic Community. Throughout the negotiations to join the EEC we have attached importance to securing for Commonwealth countries the best possible arrangements to secure their interests. The EEC has agreed to examine with the Asian Commonwealth countries, after enlargement and taking into account the scope of the generalised preference scheme, such problems as may arise in the trade sector with a view to finding suitable solutions. It is doubtful whether enlargement of the Community in itself will create problems for Sri Lanka, or whether our adoption of the common external tariff will have any effect on Sri Lanka's exports to us. The


bulk of its exports to us is made up of tea, as my hon. Friend will know. She has a great knowledge of the country and has spent a great deal of time getting to know many Asian countries. On tea there is a continued nil Community tariff. In addition, Sri Lanka is benefiting from the generalised preference scheme already put into operation by the EEC and to which we shall accede after enlargement.
I must again apologise to the House for keeping it for so long at this late hour. The Bill is important in the history of Ceylon and in the history of legislation in this House, in that it is changing the name of Ceylon to Sri Lanka. It is right that right hon. and hon. Members should spend a little time in discussing the matter and letting the people of Sri Lanka know the views of the House of Commons. Britain has had close connections with Ceylon for over 150 years, and I am confident that the links will remain close in spite of this constitutional change. We welcome the decision to remain within the Commonwealth, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in extending to the President, the Government and the people of Sri Lanka our best wishes for the future prosperity, peace and success of the new Republic.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Committee tomorrow.

FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [Lords]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee ), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is not inappropriate that we should be discussing tonight an archaeological Measure—and whereas I would not pretend that in New Palace Yard there is anything like a field monument, the fact remains that we have archaeology literally at our own back door.
I will not burden the House with details about what should or should not be going on in New Palace Yard at present, but I should like to pose a question to the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that we are setting a good example and that there is archaeological supervision taking place. This may be the entrance to the old Palace of Westminster.
I see the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in his place and I know that he takes a lively interest in these matters. I hope the Department realises that a number of hon. Members are interested in how we conduct these matters which are personal to us and near to us. We hope that perhaps the Under-Secretary will stray a little out of order and say what his Department is doing to make sure that the House of Commons and the Palace of Westminster are setting a fairly good example.
Although we have tabled a formal Motion on this Bill, I hope that it will be accepted that it is not the purpose of the Opposition to delay what we regard as a welcome Measure.
The background of the matter is that there are a large number of archaeological sites which are being destroyed each year by, for example, motorway construction, urban development, extraction of mineral resources and especially gravel, and above all by deep ploughing.
A not unreasonable estimate is that there are 16 sites per square mile over the country as a whole, with two per linear mile of motorway. These date from 500,000 BC down to the Industrial Revolution. The majority are not visible on the surface and can be elucidated only by archaeological investigation. The sites are as different and as unique as possible; very many of them add something new to our knowledge of our own past.
For half a million years down to the Roman conquest they are our only source of information. After the Roman conquest the sites are augmented, but not supplanted, by documentary material. Indeed, in many cases the documents are only comprehensible in the light of archaeological evidence.
Having said this, may I add that none of us pretends that all sites can be preserved. In most cases it would be quite


unjustifiable to hold up motorway construction or some other development. But what is reasonable—and this is the "bull" point of the Bill—is that many sites should be saved from deep ploughing and new methods of agriculture which are rather different from the techniques that lasted many centuries.
The Opposition welcome the system of acknowledgment payments and hope that it is effective as embodied in the Bill. Where possible monuments should be kept as a reserve of information, to be investigated without duress and at some leisure or by more advanced methods in the future. The situation is in some ways like the list of pictures which must be kept in this country—except that these sites are much more important to our own British history than Titian's "Death of Actaeon," which is not part of our culture. When we bear in mind the sum of £100,000 in relation to that painting—and I hesitate, to make comparisons—it seems strange that for want of a few thousand pounds priceless archaeological sites should be lost for ever. On the other hand, we have spent a great deal of public money in preserving one, and perhaps not the most important, Titian.
What is required is not so much preservation as investigation. This means a breathing space. One of the reasons why we welcome the Bill is that it gives us something of a breathing space. It is the opportunity for a breathing space which was important to the Walsh Committee and which we welcome.
I want to raise again one or two issues which came up in Committee. First, we think on reflection that the occupier and landowner must be informed, as well as the tenant to whom payment is made. This point was emphasised by a number of hon. Members, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). We can see certain circumstances in which a breakdown of communication is almost certain to take place.
The second question is whether £150,000 is enough. I can understand the chagrin of the Department which, doubtless in the best of faith, gave certain specific undertakings about the site at Durrington Walls in Wiltshire. But ploughing has taken place in parts of a site about which specific questions were

asked and specific undertakings were given by the now Minister of State for Northern Ireland, who was the present Minister's predecessor. Parts of this important site have been destroyed. I am not saying to the Department, "I told you so". One realises that accidents can happen. But one is entitled to ask whether these acknowledgment payments will be of benefit, as we have all hoped. I put the question gently. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say a little about it. In the same breath, the example of Corebridge on Tyne was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop).
The third matter is the way in which schoolchildren can help, not in excavating sites, but certainly in conserving and preserving them, undertaking some of the functions of a conservation corps.
The fourth issue is the appointment of warders and qualified staff. What has taken place since our discussions in Committee on remuneration for wardens, how many have been recruited, and how does the situation look like working out? Some two months later, we hope that progress has been made.
The fifth is a simple fiscal point. It concerns taxation. It was said in Committee that the payments would be tax-free. As an active member of the Committee which has been considering the Finance Bill, I know that the Committee did not discuss this matter. Have any conclusions been reached in discussions with the Treasury?
There is another matter that I wish to raise, and perhaps the best way to do it is by means of a concrete example. The one that I take is the village of Puck ridge in Hertfordshire. There is a second century Roman cremation cemetery over an Iron Age village. Iron brooches and coins have been found there. It is aptly named Skeleton Green. The site lies on the northern edge of the present village at the foot of Wickham Hill, where the Roman town lay beside Ermine Street. The Puck ridge bypass will cut across the area, so it is being investigated in advance by the East Hertfordshire Archaeological Society.
The reason why I raise this example is that, for the first time in Britain, a Clause has been written into—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. This is outside the scope of the Bill, unless he can show me how he relates it to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is developing a detailed case.

Mr. Dalyell: I use it as an example arising out of our discussions in Committee. This is the first time in Britain that a Clause has been written into a road contract to allow archaeologists to work unhindered for an agreed period before construction begins. The contractors have co-operated in the advance work. Certainly during discussions on Second Reading and in Committee a great deal of emphasis was laid on the importance of a breathing space—the fact that contractors, farmers and other owners of small sites should not rush at things, so that the archaeologists did not have time to establish the evidence and at least record before something was destroyed.
I wish to raise with the Minister the question of marine archaeology and the Holland Herald's account of the East Indiaman, the "Amsterdam". Does what applies on land also apply—on a somewhat larger scale—on the sea? Some of us think that the "Amsterdam" could be a top tourist attraction and could be restored—either by Dr. Van den Heidi, of the Netherlands, or by British marine archaeologists, who are second to none—in the way that the "Vassar" was restored.
We are extremely interested in the follow up to the Field Monuments Bill—major ancient monuments legislation. I shall not go into details about the preservation of the Roman basilica—perhaps the largest north of the Alps—that lies in Leaden hall Street, or about plans put forward by the Opposition Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), about the development of the whole of Thames side for the nine miles east of Black friars, but it is relevant to say that standard procedures should be established whereby the archaeological potential of all sites threatened by development were considered at an early stage in the planning. If this were done arrangements could be made in good time, and essential preliminary fund-raising could be carried out so that there would not be a repetition

of what happened in the case of Baynard's Castle.
Andrew Selkirk, editor of Current Archaeology, referred to buildings. What formal meetings will the Department have with Martin Biddle and others who have written "The Erosion of History", on urban archaeology and, not least, in the light of the Bill brought forward this afternoon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne)?
It is on the question of urban archaeology that I wish to end. All of us are concerned about what has happened in Lincoln, where one-fifth of the Roman town is already destroyed. It is a major tourist dollar-earner, as are many other archaeological sites.
The subject that my hon. and learned Friend went into—the £7,000 payment by the Department of the Environment to the Lincoln police authority for permission to excavate the site of the new police headquarters—needs some explanation. Many of us are more interested in what will happen to professional Lincoln archaeologists. That would be outside the scope of the Bill, and I do not want to abuse the time of the House by going into details of a particular case. I just wish to put down a marker with the Department to show that we are interested in Miss Christina Collyer's future. The market site in Lincoln is a national monument, and attention should be paid to recent Press reports of exactly what went on. The Department of the Environment cannot pass by on the other side of the road.
Some of us would have liked to draw a contrast between what has happened in Lincoln and the kind of things that have happened in York, except that we gather that the shortage of funds has caught up with York and the eight appointments by Peter Addyman, Director of Archaeology in York, have not all been filled. It may be that money will not be available, either, to do the excavations or to do the jobs that have been advertised.
We come back finally to the issue of money. It is true that the amount earmarked for archaeology has risen in the last few years. I do not wish to make a party point about it. But a great deal more remains to be done, and when one


thinks that archaeology is very much part of our British heritage, I want to express the view on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that, considering the recent increase in interest and expertise in archaeology, there should be generous action by the Treasury.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to detain the House. I must be careful not to stray out of order, though I am sure that your interest in things marine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not disallow me to make reference to what was said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on an important aspect of this subject, even if not, strictly speaking, covered by the Bill. You know from your agricultural interests that the scope of the Bill covers many important matters, and your sense of history and love of this place will make you fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about New Palace Yard, even if that was straying near the bounds of order. I am satisfied that the Department of the Environment will maintain constant surveillance over what goes on there and that nothing will escape it.
I hope that the passing of the Bill will renew public interest in these matters, that landowners will be more friendly disposed to archaeologists and archaeology, and that public money being involved will stimulate the use of a little well-placed private money. We should do nothing to discourage people, such as the great marmalade proprietor, Mr. Keiller, who spent most of his fortune at Avebury. The public purse cannot do it all. If we have to deal with unwilling landowners and disinterested members of the public, public money will not go very far.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian about trying to get more public interest and support. The Government are obviously right to introduce this Measure. Archaeology is not a dead science. It is very much part of living history, if one considers it seriously, and there is growing interest among young people. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.

11.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): We welcome the general support given to

this Measure which, though small, is useful and makes specific proposals for safeguarding field monuments which, in many cases, are prominent features of our environment. The Bill deals exclusively with monuments which lie in those areas of the countryside where there is agricultural production and afforestation.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will understand that I cannot follow him over the wide range of archaeological matters to which he referred. I will do my best now to answer some of the many questions which he posed. If there are any oustanding questions I shall closely examine his speech and write to him in more detail as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the New Palace Yard excavations. I assure him that they are under close archaeological watch by the Department's inspectors.
The hon. Gentleman asked about schoolchildren helping regarding monuments covered by the Bill. A great deal of skill is required in archaeological exploration of this kind and a considerable degree of supervision is necessary on occasions, but, as I promised in Committee, we will certainly look into the general situation with the departments concerned because there could be some developing interest for children in monuments not of national but of local importance. It may be that educational institutions could properly engage the developing interest of children in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman asked about informing owners. He will know that we have agreed with both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association that they will encourage occupiers to inform owners of the agreements into which they enter. There is no doubt that landowners, in the interests of good estate management, will want a developing interest in these matters and will be encouraged, especially through the NFU and CLA.
The hon. Gentleman asked about wardens. We expect to recruit about a dozen to start with, but we cannot begin recruitment until the Bill becomes law.
It is true that the acknowledgment payment agreements will result in about


£150,000 a year being distributed to those who enter into agreements, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that there has been an increase of provision this year in respect of archaeological expenditure. It is one-quarter more than it was last year. Of this increased expenditure, the excavation provision is 50 per cent. more than last year. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that we are supporting in a practical way our strong interest in these archaeological matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the delicate matter of Durrington Walls. That is outside the scope of the Bill as it has no connection with acknowledgment payments but relates to a possible breach of a preservation order. We are carefully investigating the circumstances of the case. There are conflicting reports of exactly what was done and in what circumstances the work was put in hand. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that until the facts are established I cannot say more than that the whole matter is being investigated.
To return to the main theme of the Bill, these ancient earthworks are familiar features of the countryside which our descendants would miss, but they are also repositories for scientific investigation into the very early days of our history. That so many have survived is a tribute to the pride and affection with which most owners and farmers look upon them.
However, in these days of intensive farming it has to be noted that they are an impediment to high productivity and efficiency, and it is in this light that this legislation has been produced, in the hope and expectation that it will meet an answering response from farmers and those growing trees or timber on their land. The Department's experience in negotiating with their representatives has been most encouraging. 
We as a Department are very much aware of the Secretary of State's duty under the Ancient Monuments Acts in the preservation of ancient monuments. It is a duty that we carry out in co-operation with the local authorities, universities and learned societies of all kinds in many parts of the country.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the distinguished members of the Field Monuments Committee which includes archaeologists, representatives of land

using interests and also independent members. It was the committee's unanimous recommendations which were incorporated into the Bill which has received wide support in this House and in another place.
The implementation of those recommendations has been followed by universal acceptance of the proposals contained in this Measure by those bodies representing archaeologists, farmers, foresters and landowners. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the payments scheme would be effective. I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation of those representative bodies to which I have referred. I believe that that co-operation is a hopeful augury for the future, because it shows a strong sense of good will and a desire to make this system work effectively. I believe that a great deal of good will follow from this modest but useful Measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

Not amended ( in the Standing Committee ),considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There are no Amendments for consideration. Mr. Speaker has found the four Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and his hon. Friends to be out of order.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I invite you to reconsider the decision not to select any of the Amendments? I am sorry to do this at such a late hour. This is an extremely short Bill, with a restricted purpose, but it changes the law. The Amendments which have been put down do not alter the main purpose of the Bill. They introduce an element of flexibility, and the proposed Amendment to the Long Title would put the other Amendments in order. I should have thought that the Amendments were directly relevant to the Bill. If they are not selected, it means that the Bill will pass through without any opportunity to amend it at all. On those grounds, Mr.


Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. Gentleman, but I am not empowered to do so. The right to select Amendments is restricted entirely to Mr. Speaker. He has made his decision and I am powerless to do anything about it. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: This Bill was introduced in another place. It was not opposed by the Opposition either there or in this House. The general weight of opinion is that there is no great harm done by children doing jobs such as newspaper rounds and a small amount of work on Saturdays under a restrictive code. Indeed, there may be some merit in children doing work which does not harm them either morally or physically. It gives them some degree of independence and enables them to earn a little pocket money and to learn how to manage money. I concede that there is some division of opinion whether this is a good or a bad thing, but the overwhelming weight of opinion is that children ought to be permitted to do small things such as paper rounds, within limitations which protect children from abuse and ensure that their education is not damaged.
The question I want to raise—and I am sorry to raise it at this rather late hour—is about the nature of the consultations which took place with interested parties. I received the impression from reading the Second Reading debate in another place and in this House that there had been some consultation about the Bill. I do not want to accuse the Minister of misleading the House—I am sure there was no intention to do that—but my hon. Friends got the impression that there had been consultations about the Bill.
Since the Committee sat, I have received a copy of a letter written by the Trades Union Congress to the Secretary of State for Social Services and I should like to quote briefly from it. The letter

states that the Home Office issued a circular to interested bodies about proposed changes in the law on child employment. The Trades Union Congress states:
At the time of these consultations it was emphasised to us that the Government had reached no conclusion about what changes in the law, if any were desirable. We were therefore surprised and concerned to learn that the Government had recently introduced a Bill into Parliament…without any further consultation with interested bodies…".
It seems a pity that the Government did not make known to interested bodies the result of their consultations. As a result, the Trades Union Congress feels that the Bill was drawn to its attention rather late in the day and it had some observations to make.
Perhaps the Minister could give an assurance that in future when the Government have considered the question and have come to a firm conclusion they will make their conclusions known before the Bill is published.
Secondly I ask for an undertaking that the general operation of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which this Bill amends, will be considered. If my Amendments had been in order and if we had discussed them, I would have suggested that the Minister should have power by regulation to change the age at which children could work and to raise it above 13, and to specify different ages for different occupations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is on dangerous ground. He had better keep away from those Amendments.

Mr. Fraser: I am off them now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister said in a parliamentary answer that there were other legislative proposals designed to improve and standardise the framework for administering this branch of the law, and that he intended to introduce regulations. As the Bill and the Children and Young Persons Act stand, local authorities can make byelaws which regulate child employment. For instance, the Inner London Education Authority has passed a byelaw saying that no child under 12 shall engage in horticultural work. It has also made byelaws prohibiting children working in kitchens, hotels, fried fish shops,


registered clubs, billiards saloons and so on.
All I am asking is that there will now be full consultation with interested bodies about legislation which I understand is to come, and which I hope will give the kind of flexibility that I would have liked to see in the Bill, after consideration of the representations of the TUC.

11.51 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: Although I am not against children showing their willingness to take jobs, I am worried about the period in the Bill. There will now be a period of three years in which they can take jobs, instead of two, as the school leaving age goes up to 16. I am not sure that this is beneficial, particularly as very often children from the poorer income group families undertake the sort of jobs envisaged, and probably they are the least well nourished and so on. I would have much preferred the starting age to be 14.
Does any Act lay down the exact number of hours the children can work? This is an important point, and it is not stated in the Bill.
I believe that there are about 150,000 young people of 13 who undertake jobs, and I should like to know which local authority is to be responsible, the district or the county, for laying down the new byelaws in regard to the age. Obviously, opinions vary between town and country, and the type of job also varies.

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) for the helpful and positive note he struck in welcoming this short Bill, and for the helpful way in which he assisted its progress through Committee. I am also much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for the slightly qualified sympathy with which she greeted the Bill.
On the question of consultation with the TUC there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I very much hope that the TUC will accept that we have at every stage sought to maintain the fullest possible good faith with it. In response to the letter to which the hon. Gentleman

referred, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written a full reply, which it would perhaps be improper for me to refer to now as the General Secretary will have received it only today.
The background to the Bill is straightforward. As the hon. Gentleman said, there were wide consultations involving scores of different bodies, including the TUC, teachers' organisations, local education authorities and so on, all of which might be thought to have a view on these matters. I received in my Department a large volume of ideas and expressions of opinion on the matter.
The difficulty we then faced was that legislation embracing a quite wide range of topics, including the wider implications of the consultations, required a quite substantial instrument to be laid before the House, for which the Government have not, alas, found time in this Session. If we had done nothing, the event would have been removed from our hands by the inexorable processes of legislation already on the Statute Book. That would have resulted in a change being made which, as was apparent from the consultations, an overwhelming majority of the people consulted felt should not be made. It was only for that reason that we pre-empted that aspect of the consultation relating to the changing of the school-leaving age so that we should not be presented with a fait accompli in advance of the substantive Measure. This was the only reason that we acted hurriedly and rapidly.
However, referring to the fuller legislation which must lie in future, it would be wrong for me to undertake that we would engage in further consultation with outside bodies beyond those extensive consultations into which we have entered. It seems to us that we have already received a vast mass of invaluable material, cogently argued, and that the proper step is for the Government to make up their mind, to present a Bill to the House and to let the House, subject to impressions which may be conveyed to it by outside bodies, reach its conclusion through the normal process of debate. The processes of consultation have enabled us to make up our mind as to that which it is proper and reasonable to present to the House. It is up


to the House to decide how it should view these matters.
We have had extensive consultations. Wide publicity will be given to the Bill when it is published. No doubt the consultation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order in referring to future legislation.

Mr. Alison: Leaving aside the question of future legislation, I have no doubt that the TUC will have occasion to make further representations and it will have the opportunity of doing so. To that extent, its needs will be met. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood will convey to the General Secretary of the TUC, should he be in touch with him, our deep appreciation of the considerable thought which it has given to this matter and the help it has given us in consultation. My right hon. Friend has written to Mr. Vic Feather today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport may be slightly overstressing the aspect of the 16-year-olds who will be brought into the pool. She said that there would be a third year, but she will agree that already a substantial number of children of 15½ years of age or above are staying on at school and that to that extent they are already in the pool. The number who come into it as a result of raising the school leaving age may not be as large as was first thought. Our impression is that once children get beyond the age of 15 they tend to drift away from the newspaper rounds and milk deliveries, which are traditionally the occupations of younger children. It is the children of 13 and 14 years of age who do the milk rounds and newspaper rounds and enjoy them. Once they get over 15 they are more preoccupied with school matters and other interests.
There are sharp and distinct rules and regulations about the matter of hours. For example, children of this age must not work before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. They must not work during school hours or for more than two hours on a school day. They must also comply with local byelaws, which generally require the production of a certificate of fitness signed by the school medical officer and which regulate in some detail the work which

may be done and the kinds of work permitted. Therefore, not only is there statutory protection for children but there is a good deal of supplementary byelaw protection.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Dame Joan Vickers: What sort of local authorities will be involved?

Mr. Alison: May I write to my hon. Friend about that? I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Schedule

THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD AND ITS ADVISORY COUNCILS

12 midnight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 45, at end insert:
'5A. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (which specifies offices the holders of which are disqualified under that Act) as it applies to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there shall be inserted at the appropriate point in alphabetical order the entry "Any member of the British Library Board in receipt of remuneration" '.
I hope that the Opposition feel that in tabling the Amendment I have discharged the undertaking which I gave in Committee. It was the intention of the Committee upon a free vote that an hon. Member who was made a member of the British Library Board but who served without remuneration should not in that event be disqualified by virtue of serving as such—that is to say, disqualified from membership of the House.
The matter has been linked—I shall explain the matter shortly—to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. It will be recalled that this is the way the House in that year codified the matter not only in this but in many other respects. There are two ways in which the Schedule to the Act, which is in three parts, can be amended. There are


respectable precedents for amending it by another Act of Parliament, and that is the way which we have chosen. I hope that I am not failing in my duty to the House by explaining the matter so briefly.

Mr. Roland Moyle: The objectives of the Amendment are common ground. We have examined the Amendment and can find nothing wrong with it. The Opposition welcome the Amendment and will support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 17, leave out from 'as' to end of line 18 and insert:
'as the Board may freely negotiate in accordance with the appropriate machinery'.
The Under-Secretary of State will immediately recognise the Amendment is a revamping of an Amendment which was attempted in Committee and which caused the Committee a little confusion due to some maladroit drafting, causing me possibly even more confusion. As the hon. Gentleman's speech in Committee was almost entirely directed to the drafting, I felt that it would be appropriate that the Amendment should be presented again so that we might probe a little deeper. It is a matter of interest to this side of the House.
As I understand the paragraph which we are discussing, when the British Library Board, through the appropriate machinery to be set up, has reached agreement with staff and employees on terms and conditions, the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Civil Service can intervene and say that the agreement is improper for some reason or other and it shall not be allowed.
It may well be that even when a top executive, a more senior employee of the board, negotiates his personal contract of service, and that again fails to find favour with the Secretary of Slate or the Minister for the Civil Service, they can step in and disallow the agreement.
It seems that there is no review procedure which the Secretary of State or the Minister of the Civil Service can go through before intervening. They seem to be able to intervene almost by whim. That does not seem to be a good recipe for good industrial relations, particularly

when it is the board's staff only which is dealt with in this way. Maybe there are other groups of employees who are so dealt with, but it is not a common practice. Perhaps we are not understanding the paragraph as well as we should do. In that case we should be pleased to have the Under-Secretary's explanation.
We are not referring to pensions because they have always been subject to review in the public service. There is a procedure for suggesting pension improvements, making improvements and setting up pension schemes, and obviously the British Library Bill is not the place to alter that procedure. Subject to that, we should be pleased to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about this paragraph.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope to be able to set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. If I heard him correctly, he said that this was not a normal provision. He will be relieved to find that it is indeed a very normal provision. It appears in a large number of broadly similar Measures—for example, the Acts establishing the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Race Relations Board, the Eggs Authority, the Community Relations Commission and the British Tourist Authority. I take these examples at random because they were all passed by the last Government and therefore have a respectability and an appeal to the hon. Gentleman which they might not otherwise have.
In broad terms there are two reasons for retaining an element of ministerial control in this matter. First, the Government have an important duty to protect the interests of the taxpayer in relation to financial assistance to grant-aided bodies, and this includes ensuring that Exchequer funds are properly used for remuneration purposes, particularly as these often account for a very large proportion of the expenditure of the bodies concerned. Secondly, it is surely desirable that where salaries are financed by the taxpayer's money reasonably consistent pay standards should be applied.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice in particular the buttress which is given to the principle of collective bargaining, to which the Government fully subscribe, by new Clause 6 which was added in Committee. If he has any


lingering doubts, it happens that, in looking over the various examples I have given, because I have a simple mind I was attracted by the case of the Eggs Authority as being the nearest parallel that I could understand. In the Committee stage of the Agriculture Act, 1969, the Minister in charge, Mr. James Hoy, now the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, had this to say when an exactly similar Amendment was moved by the then Opposition:
…ministerial control over the pay and allowances of the Authority's staff…has been included because it is now considered appropriate, when we are establishing new statutory bodies, with provision for a significant Government contribution towards their expenditure, that there should also be a provision for ministerial supervision over pay and allowances. I would have thought that this would have been acceptable to hon. Members opposite. Where the Government are contributing towards staff salaries there is a need to ensure that the Government get value for money."—[Official Report; Standing Committee B, 25th November, 1969; c. 104.]
Those are good trenchant Tory phrases from a Labour Minister. I cannot go quite as far as Lord Hoy did on that occasion but, seeing the respectability of the argument and the antecedents behind it, the hon. Gentleman may feel that he can support it now. Indeed, the then Opposition, having probed, were so impressed by Lord Hoy's argument that they withdrew their Amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to do the same tonight.

Mr. Moyle: I am not entirely impressed with the arguments but I am impressed with the respectability of their origin and for that reason, and because the Under-Secretary accepted our new Clause 6, which goes a long way to ensuring that the staff of the British Library Board will have proper rights, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I believe that this great imaginative scheme which we are discussing would never have seen the light of day, let alone have reached the Statute Book as it now seems likely to do, without the energy and per-

sistence of my noble Friend, the sometime Chairman of the British Museum Trustees and now the Paymaster-General and Minister responsible for the arts. It would be the wish of quite a number of hon. Members that we should pay tribute to the noble Lord for his work in making sure that the British Library became a reality.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: While I share the views of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) to some extent, I hope that I am not out of order in also expressing some regret that, so far as one can tell, construction of the British Library will mean the removal, the obliteration, of several of those small streets in Holborn area in which quite a number of people actually reside. The centre of London is being rapidly depopulated.
Could the Minister, even at this late date, tell us whether there is any chance that some of these small streets, like Museum Street, Bury Street and Bury Place, can still be preserved or are they all being swept away for this scheme which is in many respects desirable?

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Moyle: We have a Motion down which in form leads us to oppose Third Reading but the Under-Secretary may rest assured that it is there only as a technicality to allow us a few words of benediction from this side.

Mr. Driberg: Qualified benediction.

Mr. Moyle: Qualified, as my hon. Friend says. But we have reached the stage at which, if we cannot express ourselves with enthusiasm, we have at least come to co-belligerency, and on this Measure we are on the same side.
It has been a joint effort. We are sometimes beastly when the Under-Secretary is being beastly on some other Measures, so it is only fair to say that he has handled this Bill fairly. I commend his sense of judgment when he encouraged the Committee to have a free vote on the question whether Members of Parliament should be allowed to serve without remuneration on the British Library Board. He did well there. As a result of our deliberations we are reassured that people with scientific and


technical knowledge can be appointed to the Board, together with those with experience in the trade union movement and those who represent employees.
If I had a broad criticism of the Bill as drafted, before it came to the House, I would have said that not enough attention had been paid to the human factor, to the board's employees. Although this has not been removed to the extent which I would have liked, it is substantially removed and the Bill is better because of that. This should be taken care of because its employees are likely to be fairly well-educated and high-quality people and there should be leadership of high quality for such a labour force, with machinery through which it can be exercised.
We are grateful for the eagle eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) who ensured that the board is provided with protection from bureaucratic interference with its meetings. We have improved the Bill. We have provided the powers to ensure that we can all hope to watch with growing pride a graceful edifice emerging and an intelligent development with the beauty of preserved buildings in the heart of the capital city. Here I join with my hon. Friend in the hope that the architect will take into account the value of preserving as much as possible of the existing buildings. When the whole operation is complete, we all hope to find a rich storehouse of knowledge wisely and sensitively administered.
It will not have escaped the attention of the Under-Secretary that several of my hon. Friends were disappointed in Committee that the Government could not at this stage see their way to providing branches in the regions devoted to science and technology. We most sincerely hope that the Government will make every endeavour to provide, regionally, scientific and technological libraries, and we shall watch the Government with vigilance in the years to come to make sure that the promise contained in the White Paper is not forgotten. The Bill gives the power to carry out this regional operation if the funds are provided. Whilst we appreciate that many problems have to be faced in the first year or two and, therefore, as an Opposition we agree with the Government in not starting off at once on this venture, we shall see that they do not forget.
We welcome the Bill and will not oppose its Third Reading.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) for his welcoming remarks. It is quite true that the Bill's progress has been marked by a working together on both sides, first of the Committee and now of the House, because this is not a contentious matter.
I shall draw most gratefully to the attention of my noble Friend the Paymaster-General the kind remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) which, if I may say so with respect, are absolutely deserved.
I shall also draw to the attention of those responsible the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), but in saying that I must not lead him to assume that it will be possible, certainly in respect of all the streets he mentioned, to retain the existing buildings. To give him that impression would be to mislead him, and I would not wish to do that. I believe that it is the intention to have an exhibition, at which we shall be able to see the plans for this very remarkable complex, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will wish to take advantage of the opportunity. Indeed, if I might, I would like to make quite sure that that particular opportunity is drawn specifically to his notice.

Mr. Driberg: I only raised the subject because we know that plans have been modified already once or twice—for instance, to preserve the very important building on the corner of Bloomsbury Square.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Indeed. That is why, in all good faith, I said that I would draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those concerned, but I did not want, in doing so, to mislead him into thinking that it might be possible to retain all the buildings he mentioned.
On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the Bill needed to be forward looking. That is quite true. There are many aspects of excellence, an excellence of which we can all be very proud, in the present institutions which, of course the British Library will want to preserve


and, if possible, even to enhance, but it will need to go beyond that. It was the hon. Member for Lewisham, North who rightly reminded us of the immense increase of human knowledge in the past 20 years, and the need for a powerful and highly efficient organisation to accumulate it and make it available as required to those people who wish to make use of it. The problem is one which will increase, not diminish, as the years go on.
The British Library will be fully capable of responding to the challenges this problem presents. Its comprehensive library and information services will build upon all that is excellent in what it has inherited from the past. But it will need—and this has been constantly reiterated—to be in the forefront of progress in all matters relating to libraries, whether this progress is towards new forms of material, new methods of keeping and transmitting it in original or copy form, new developments in library operations and management, or in any other aspect which is relevant to its central rôle in relation to this country's library system and to the principal libraries of overseas countries.
It is because I wanted to emphasise the forward-looking nature of the legislation that I have addressed these few remarks to the House. I like to think that this has been a discussion of unanimity. Those who are concerned and those who will work within this remarkable new complex can be assured that both sides of the House wish it well in its task.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

DONCASTER (DEVELOPMENT)

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: Fifteen years ago the annual average rate of unemployment in Doncaster was 1·3 per cent.—as near full employment as anyone can reasonably ask for. But

since those halcyon days the position has deteriorated at an increasing and recently alarming pace.
The most recent edition of the Department of Employment Gazette shows that the level of unemployment in the Doncaster travel-to-work area for May was running at 6.2 per cent., which is almost the same as the rate for the development areas in the same month. That was not a freak month. The same comparison could have been made at almost any time during the last 18 months. Admittedly, the most recent employment exchange figures show an improvement, but it is equally true that the winter figures were very much worse, and the undeniable fact is that the trend sustained over several years is a progressively worsening one.
Doncaster is faced not with a temporary recession that will melt away as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures filter their way through the economy, but a slide into chronic high unemployment; that is, unless there is intervention to change the pattern of development.
Three years ago the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council carried out a study in depth of the Doncaster area. It accurately prophesied the present bleak unemployment level of roughly 6,000 people out of work. More grim still is its further forecast that unless action is taken there will be a possible shortage of 10,000 male jobs within the next three years. It was this grim spectre of 10,000 men on the dole that spurred the Mayor of Doncaster to lead a powerful deputation to the Minister's office last year. For all the effect that it had on the Minister the members of the deputation might as well have saved their train fares.
Since then the picture has become even more bleak. The Doncaster Ford factory—Yorkshire's last link with the motor car industry—is closing, with the loss of about 200 jobs. When I checked today on the latest position, I learned that some of the redundant men had been sufficiently fortunate to find jobs as milkmen. But they are the lucky ones. For the others there is nothing—and they still have to be added to the unemployment totals. A further 450 jobs are under the axe because of the restructuring of British Rail administration.


National Carriers Limited has recently declared redundancies consequent upon the rationalisation of freight handling.
I learned only tonight from the local newspaper, the Doncaster Evening Post, that the Volkswagen depot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley)—who is in his place and hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—employing 80 people, is to be transferred to the new town of Milton Keynes.
ICI Fibres is one of the town's major employers, and there is no secret about the shadow cast over that industry by Japanese imports. I can only view with disquiet and anxiety the future of coal and railways, two major industries on which the town is heavily dependent.
Added to all this is the inevitably adverse effect of declaring the whole of Lancashire and Yorkshire to be intermediate areas. I do not criticise that decision since I think it was right. But we cannot ignore the consequences of this so far as the former, more limited, intermediate area is concerned.
Doncaster and the neighbouring areas have a more pressing need of assistance than almost anywhere outside the development areas—and indeed a greater need than a good many places within the development areas, a need which was recognised by giving the Yorkshire coalfield a preferential status over its neighbouring areas. But that advantage has now been taken away. We are left with bleak prospects indeed. All the Minister can offer in reply to questions about future job prospects is a vision of no more than 2,000 jobs—new jobs—in the foreseeable future. If the situation is gloomy, it is also enigma. There is a contradiction in so far as the area seems to have all the conditions necessary for economic growth.
The economic planning council says that it is a youthful, modern and dynamic area. It has excellent road communciations, equally excellent rail communciations and there is rapid access to the main consumer markets in the country. It is located on one of the most important inland waterway systems in the country and it has good access to the principal ports. Energy prices are lower; water prices are lower. There are plentiful supplies of sand, gravel and lime-

stone. The housing stock is modern. There is a modern shopping and services centre, a plentiful supply of land and—need I say it—a plentiful supply of labour. In short, and in theory, we should have it "made".
Since the 1920s report after report has predicted a rosy and prosperous future for the Doncaster area, but we seem fated always to be a bridesmaid and never a bride—and why? Probably if the enonomy were shaped by free market forces, and those alone, the oft-predicted boom would occur. But with the exception of a few eccentrics, in these days none of us, least of all myself, believes in the unbridled operation of the market. We are all interventionists more or less, and the powerful inducements given to the development areas have weakened the strong natural pull of London and the South-East.
It is not only the magnetic poles of the development areas on the one hand and the industrially sought-after South East on the other that has been draining Doncaster's strength. We have been disadvantaged by an unsympathetic attitude towards the issue of IDCs in the past. We were struck a cruel blow when the Government in 1963 turned Fords from Doncaster to Halewood and deprived us of our car industry.
I think the time has come when we in the area are wholly justified in asking that the power of Government intervention, which up to now has been used in a way that has stunted Doncaster's natural growth, should be turned to repairing some of the damage that has been done.
The economic planning council's study makes it clear that there must be intervention by the Government if we are to close the 1975 job gap of between 6,000 and 10,000. There is little hope of jobs being generated locally. The Planning council expresses the view that the forecast shortfall in employment will have to be filled by incoming industry.
The council goes on to say that this will be accomplished only by an early and determined effort on the part of central and local government to induce industry to settle in and expand in the area. I believe that local government is playing its part. It has established.


among other things, a vigorous departmental council with a full-time professional staff. Now we are asking the central government to act to avert a black future for our area. We are urging the Government to do what commonsense decrees: fully to utilise our infrastructure investment which I have described and our natural advantages.
Why cannot a start be made by diverting some Government offices to the area? I know that much has been done in dispersing Government offices, but we are a long way from exhausting the scope. There are the additional jobs created by VAT. There is no reason why many of these could not be done as well in Doncaster as in London. Why must the regional offices of Government Departments be located in places such as Leeds? Doncaster is just as central for their function, and at least as good from the point of view of communications. Why must the headquarters of the nationalised industries be in London? Why are their administrative functions concentrated here? Just to select one example, the National Coal Board must have hundreds of jobs which could be done as well in the centre of Britain's coal mining, in the heart of the Yorkshire coalfield, as in London.
It is this kind of service industry that we need so badly. Above all, if we are to attract the new industry that we need—and that the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council says that we need—and to have the inducements to do so, we want development area status. I believe that our case for this is at least as strong as that of the present development areas, and certainly stronger than was theirs when they were created.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Richard Kelley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for giving up a little of his time to allow me to say a few words in this debate. However, after the news this morning about the attitude of the West German Government to regional policy, one wonders whether our cry should not go out to the Bundestag or perhaps to the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
My constituency surrounds the borough of Doncaster. Through the Don Valley is the only way in and the only way out

of the borough of Doncaster. It is understandable that my hon. Friend and I have a great deal in common when we consider this problem of unemployment. We are what is known as a travel-to-work area. This was a device of the Department to try to reduce the percentage of employment by applying the same common factor to a greater number. But we are not really a travel-to-work area in this sense. We are a travel-to-the-dole area. The phrase has come to mean a concentration of employment exchanges where people sign on for the dole.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that development area status is essential for the future wellbeing of our area and to restore some of that economic virility with which our district was associated a few years ago. There is no doubt that new industry of the modern technological age is what Doncaster requires, and this means a great deal of effort on the part of the Government to steer industry in this direction. That means full development area status.
In the meantime, there is a great deal that can be done. We are largely dependent upon coal. The commercial life of Doncaster is prosperous when coal is prosperous. The Government should make an announcement as early as possible that the new power stations to be built by the Central Electricity Generating Board should be coal-fired. This would do a great deal to restore some of the lost confidence in coal which has rubbed off on to the economy of the area as a whole.
It would also bring a lively interest into the area if an announcement were made by the Government that the £2½ million scheme for the improvement of the canal system was about to be approved. It has been in the hands of the Department concerned for long enough. It should have made up its mind by now. This scheme would enable canal boats to travel from just below Sheffield into the Continental canal system and, through that, up to the Danube. It would open up enormous opportunities for certain types of export industries already in the area and many that we hope to attract. With development area status, there is no doubt that Doncaster would soon appear to be the type of area which industries would find attractive.
We hear a great deal about the wonderful opportunities that Europe will open up for us when we get into the Common Market, which apparently requires the Government to scrap their Industry Bill and to get the £ back on course.
But these opportunities, if they are there, cannot be taken unless we as a nation are equipped to take them, with all our resources harnessed to play their full rôle. How can we do this if we let an important centre of industry and some of the best working-class people in the world wither and die because of some cockeyed investment policy? No nation can afford to keep people in idleness who are willing and able to work, but that is happening in the Doncaster area—as, I admit, it is happening in other places. It is just because this Government have no coherent economic policy to bring jobs to the people that this sorry state of affairs exists in the area represented by my hon. Friend and myself.
My experience of unemployment makes me realise that our people will demand that something is done. Those who cannot do it will have to get out of the way, because the people themselves will take some action to see that it is done.
There is no more despairing sight than that of a young boy or girl who, after having left school with all the hope and vigour to take up the challenges of the brave new world, is rejected time after time at the factory gates in my area and that of Doncaster borough. These young people are rejected until they drift into demoralised idleness or find some dead-end job. We have too many cases like that to deal with day by day. There are too few opportunities for the young people to take up responsibilities to enjoy the dignity of labour and acquire the skills of industry.
The Government should forthwith make an announcement that it is their firm intention to site a new training centre in Doncaster. New industries will require new skills, and we have a duty to our people and those who will come after them to train the young people of today so that they can play their proper rô1e in building tomorrow.

12.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) on obtaining this opportunity to discuss the very real difficulties faced by the Doncaster area. It is an opportunity—albeit slightly shortened—that allows me to emphasise once again the substantial nature of the new regional measures that we have proposed. The hon. Member has in my opinion, given a fairly comprehensive picture—perhaps a little bleak—of Doncaster's problems, although I think that in some respects he and his hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) may have underestimated the area's natural advantages and the resourcefulness of its inhabitants.
The first point that I want to make is that Doncaster's problems are fully recognised by the Government and were not overlooked in the review of regional policy earlier this year. As the hon. Member knows, the conclusion of that review was that intermediate area status should be given to the whole of the Yorkshire-Humberside region but that no part of it should be upgraded to development area status. I shall now go on to explain the reasons for that decision as it applies to Doncaster.
In making decisions on assisted area status my right hon. Friend is required to have regard to all the circumstances, both actual and expected. I say that to emphasise that such decisions are not based on a simplistic head count of the unemployed. That is an important factor, but we must also take account of the future prospects of a particular area with a view to judging whether it has inherent disadvantages on a sufficient scale to justify regional assistance to encourage industrial development. We have also to bear in mind that assistance given to one area is a penalty for another. If we assign priorities indiscriminately we shall negate much of the benefit of the regional measures we employ.
We reached the conclusion that the problems of the Doncaster area should be capable of resolution by the combination of its natural advantages and the new regional measures which we are now introducing for intermediate areas. We


did not consider it right to assign the area the same priority as the development areas where the problems faced are such as to require more drastic solutions.
How did we reach this conclusion? First, it was clear to us that Doncaster had no inherent drawbacks as a site for industrial development. Indeed, it had many advantages, particularly in respect of location and load communications. In many ways the town could be said to be located in a central position in the British industrial economy. Taking into account future road developments, the communications compare favourably with almost any other part of the region or, indeed, of the country as a whole.
In that respect the hon. Member for Don Valley found that the only point of criticism on that score was the canal system. I am sure that what he said on that subject will be noted carefully, and I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment.
We agreed with the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council's view that this area was a suitable centre for natural industrial growth; but we recognised that the area had some ground to make up because of the pattern of industrial development there in the past. The area has, however, had the advantage of intermediate area status since early 1970, and we felt it right and sufficient that it should continue to have such status until its industrial structure and prospects had improved considerably. That view was not, of course, taken in the abstract; it was very much based on our revision of the incentives that will now be available in the intermediate areas.
The measures that we shall be devoting to help intermediate areas should not be under-estimated. Regional development grants, at the rate of 20 per cent. towards expenditure on industrial buildings, will be available in the area. These will now apply to existing firms as well as to new enterprises and to the modernisation of premises as well as to new construction.
The specific intention here is not to concentrate solely on encouraging new industry but to safeguard the operations of existing industry and to help such firms to modernise their facilities. This measure will, in my view, be of particular

help in the Yorkshire and Humberside region where so many obsolescent buildings exist.
It is worth stressing that this measure will be supplemented by the national 40 per cent. initial taxation allowance on industrial building and that the regional development grants will not be discounted for assessing what is available under this heading. As elsewhere in the country, firms in the area will also be able to claim 100 per cent. first-year depreciation on investment in plant and machinery. Regional development grants and taxation allowances are by no means the whole story. Under the powers being sought in the Industry Bill we propose to make selective assistance available in the intermediate areas to firms that need it, and that includes the service industries.
On the dispersal of Government offices, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are conducting a major review in which the interests of Doncaster will not be overlooked. We hope to get the results later this year.
The regions will recognise that these very wide powers in the Industry Bill will enable us to do a great deal for them. They will also have noted that we intend to operate selective assistance measures, very largely on advice, at the regional level. Both our regional offices, whether in Leeds, Doncaster, or anywhere else in Yorkshire, and the new industrial development executive are being structured to ensure that the maximum possible expertise and local knowledge are devoted to providing assistance in the most effective possible way.
The fact that I am still not at the end of the story illustrates the very wide range of assistance which we are devoting to the regional problem. As an assisted area Doncaster is eligible for several other measures of assistance, such as grants for derelict land clearance, housing improvement grants, assistance for training and resettlement—in that context, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment will note what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for a training centre, though I know it is their view that the centre at Wakefield is probably the most suitable in the circumstances—aid for special infrastructure schemes and advance factory building.


None of these measures is negligible in itself, and together they add up to a very comprehensive attack on the problems faced by that part of the country.
Finally, I should not turn away from the subject of regional measures without mentioning industrial development certificate control. I assure the hon. Gentleman that control will be operated in a highly liberal manner for Doncaster. Certificates will be freely granted for projects which are in keeping with local needs and resources and our regional office will continue actively to steer suitable projects to the area.
One criticism made by the hon. Gentleman is that the former intermediate areas in the region will suffer now that their neighbours have similar status. I do not think that this will prove to be the case. In my view it is wrong to adopt a piecemeal attitude to assisted status within a particular region because this will only distort and inhibit the natural growth in the region as a whole. Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that prosperity in the region generally will work through to each part of it.
Have we in all these measures catered for Doncaster's problems? Unemployment is, of course, the symptom rather than the problem itself, and the basic difficulty in Doncaster is the industrial structure. There has been over dependence upon a few large industries, and there have been redundancies, but these are now largely a fact of history. The area has been heavily dependent upon the coal industry, although less so than other parts of the Yorkshire coalfield, but it should not be forgotten that more people in the area are employed in manufacturing industry than in coal mining, and there is also a strong service sector. What is needed now is a healthy performance by existing industry and a share of the new industry that will be developing in the country as a whole. I am confident that our new measures will be capable of bringing about both of these.
The coal industry, to which the hon. Member for Don Valley referred, has made a good recovery since the strike this year. Output is back to pre-strike levels and stocks are higher than they were this time last year. Productivity has shown an encouraging improvement, and in the Doncaster area has been par-

ticularly good. The Doncaster area is fortunate in being one of the more efficient and productive parts, of the coal industry.
The industry as a whole has grave financial problems following the strike but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 6th March, we are now considering the major financial problems facing the NCB and legislation will be introduced in due course to deal with them. The issues are very difficult and complex, and I cannot tonight say exactly what solutions the Government will propose, but the hon. Gentleman may be assured that we shall take full account of the regional and manpower considerations involved.
To sum up, the new regional measures which we are proposing will be of substantial benefit to the Doncaster area. They should ensure that the area gets a satisfactory share of the industrial growth which we expect to come about from our national economic measures and, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Don Valley, from our entry into Europe.
But I cannot stress too strongly that national prosperity is, at the end of the day, the key to the regional problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the effectiveness of these measures will be reinforced by the natural advantages of Doncaster, particularly in respect of location and by the initiative of its inhabitants. Above all, we must have time for our new measures to work. We certainly shall be keeping a close watch on developments, and in the case of Doncaster the future of the local coal industry will be one factor that we shall take into account.
It is worth noting, because of the rather bleak picture that is sometimes painted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the latest evidence from the unemployment front is fairly promising. There was an overall fall in the unemployment rate from 6·2 per cent. in May to 5·6 per cent. in June, and this has been the trend generally this year. The figure in June was significantly below the average for the development areas. It is still, of course, far too high, but the trend suggests that we are right to be confident in the effectiveness of our overall policies.
I am confident that the Government's new measures will stimulate economic activity in Doncaster, and I believe that Doncaster should be confident that it has a great deal to offer to existing and to mobile industry through its own efforts.

through Government assistance and through its natural advantages as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to One o'clock.